Discussion:
Ping: Michael
Add Reply
Hieronymous Corey
2019-08-27 09:26:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Found something I thought you'd like. Five hours of
Edgar Allan Poe stories read by Vincent Price and Basil Rathbone.
http://www.openculture.com/2015/08/5-hours-of-edgar-allan-poe-stories-read-by-vincent-price-basil-rathbone.html?fbclid=IwAR2dZzoniUmQaP-sAiEUfEfLSg9CMLghMP8ef7NWdgMhb4rIBT0DJPRNxaI
Michael Pendragon
2019-08-27 17:44:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hieronymous Corey
Found something I thought you'd like. Five hours of
Edgar Allan Poe stories read by Vincent Price and Basil Rathbone.
http://www.openculture.com/2015/08/5-hours-of-edgar-allan-poe-stories-read-by-vincent-price-basil-rathbone.html?fbclid=IwAR2dZzoniUmQaP-sAiEUfEfLSg9CMLghMP8ef7NWdgMhb4rIBT0DJPRNxaI
Thanks, Hieronymous.

I saw Vincent Price reading Poe (backed by Lex Baxter) when I was 14 or 15 and loved it ("An Evening With Edgar Allan Poe," 1970). I'm looking forward to hearing this set... when I get the chance.

I'm actually in the middle of re-reading one of my Poe collections at this time (it's been a while), and find them every bit as mesmerizing as when I'd first read them 40-ish years ago.
Hieronymous Corey
2019-08-27 17:49:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You're very welcome. A friend posted it to FB, and I thought you'd enjoy it.
Peter J Ross
2019-08-27 17:56:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Tue, 27 Aug 2019 10:44:53 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
I saw Vincent Price reading Poe (backed by Lex Baxter) when I was 14
or 15 and loved it ("An Evening With Edgar Allan Poe," 1970). I'm
looking forward to hearing this set... when I get the chance.
You'd probably like this:

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02x5kph>

Cushing at his straightest, Price at his campest, and lots of witty
dialogue for both of them.
Post by Michael Pendragon
I'm actually in the middle of re-reading one of my Poe collections
at this time (it's been a while), and find them every bit as
mesmerizing as when I'd first read them 40-ish years ago.
Like you, I enjoy re-reading books I admired as a child. Unlike you, I
don't imagine that Anthony Buckeridge, Richmal Crompton and Frank
Richards are gods.
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
Michael Pendragon
2019-08-27 18:21:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Tue, 27 Aug 2019 10:44:53 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
I saw Vincent Price reading Poe (backed by Lex Baxter) when I was 14
or 15 and loved it ("An Evening With Edgar Allan Poe," 1970). I'm
looking forward to hearing this set... when I get the chance.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02x5kph>
Cushing at his straightest, Price at his campest, and lots of witty
dialogue for both of them.
Thanks Peter. I'm a fan of Price and Cushing, but have always stayed away from Dr. Who (which has always sounded silly to me). I'll add this to my listening list as well.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
I'm actually in the middle of re-reading one of my Poe collections
at this time (it's been a while), and find them every bit as
mesmerizing as when I'd first read them 40-ish years ago.
Like you, I enjoy re-reading books I admired as a child. Unlike you, I
don't imagine that Anthony Buckeridge, Richmal Crompton and Frank
Richards are gods.
I'd first attempted to read Poe when I was twelve... and failed miserably. Even today (after having read his stories numerous times), I'm still required to turn to the dictionary (a.k.a. Google) to look up various words, references and foreign phrases.

And, apart from the odd poems appearing in high school English lit texts and Norton-esque anthologies, I hadn't read Blake or Whitman until I was in my early twenties.

My favorite authors as a child were Eugene Field, Mark Twain and Robert Louis Stevenson -- all of whom I continue to admire today. As for actual children's books, I liked Maurice Sendak, Remy Charlip and Hans Christian Andersen.

Suffice to say that I practically born with a highly discriminating sense of literary taste.
Peter J Ross
2019-09-01 14:55:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Tue, 27 Aug 2019 11:21:12 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Tue, 27 Aug 2019 10:44:53 -0700
Post by Michael Pendragon
I saw Vincent Price reading Poe (backed by Lex Baxter) when I was
14 or 15 and loved it ("An Evening With Edgar Allan Poe," 1970).
I'm looking forward to hearing this set... when I get the chance.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02x5kph>
Cushing at his straightest, Price at his campest, and lots of witty
dialogue for both of them.
Thanks Peter. I'm a fan of Price and Cushing, but have always
stayed away from Dr. Who (which has always sounded silly to me).
I'll add this to my listening list as well.
How can an admirer of Poe complain about silliness?

When Robert Holmes contributed to Doctor Who, as writer or script
editor, the balance between silliness and seriousness was just about
perfect, but in fact his only involvement with "Aliens in the Mind"
was to provide some ideas, and perhaps a plot outline.

The plot doesn't amount to much, but Price and Cushing both give
excellent performances.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
I'm actually in the middle of re-reading one of my Poe
collections at this time (it's been a while), and find them every
bit as mesmerizing as when I'd first read them 40-ish years ago.
Like you, I enjoy re-reading books I admired as a child. Unlike
you, I don't imagine that Anthony Buckeridge, Richmal Crompton and
Frank Richards are gods.
I'd first attempted to read Poe when I was twelve... and failed
miserably. Even today (after having read his stories numerous
times), I'm still required to turn to the dictionary (a.k.a. Google)
to look up various words, references and foreign phrases.
I think I first read Poe's short stories (with great enthusiasm) when
I was about fourteen. Within a couple of years I'd moved on to Waugh
and Joyce. I don't remember ever thinking much of Poe's poems, and
what I've read more recently of his non-fictional prose doesn't
impress me.

In all humility, I think it would be Poe who'd have to look up my
words, references and foreign phrases rather than vice versa.
Post by Michael Pendragon
And, apart from the odd poems appearing in high school English lit
texts and Norton-esque anthologies, I hadn't read Blake or Whitman
until I was in my early twenties.
I hope you didn't waste *all* your time in your early twenties.
Post by Michael Pendragon
My favorite authors as a child were Eugene Field, Mark Twain and
Robert Louis Stevenson -- all of whom I continue to admire today.
I don't know Field. Twain is all right. Stevenson is great.
Post by Michael Pendragon
As for actual children's books, I liked Maurice Sendak, Remy Charlip
and Hans Christian Andersen.
I haven't read Sendak; I've never heard of Charlip; I ought to read
Andersen.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Suffice to say that I practically born with a highly discriminating
sense of literary taste.
I neither share nor approve of your taste.

The first "grown-up" books I read were /The Three Musketeers/ (in
translation), /Treasure Island/ (possibly abridged) and /Ivanhoe/,
which was my favourite.

Nowadays I don't think much of Dumas, but Stevenson is one of the
greats, and Scott is probably the greatest of all English prose
writers, and one of the very few who could hold his head high in the
company of the Greeks and Romans.
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
Michael Pendragon
2019-09-01 19:01:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Tue, 27 Aug 2019 11:21:12 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Tue, 27 Aug 2019 10:44:53 -0700
Post by Michael Pendragon
I saw Vincent Price reading Poe (backed by Lex Baxter) when I was
14 or 15 and loved it ("An Evening With Edgar Allan Poe," 1970).
I'm looking forward to hearing this set... when I get the chance.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02x5kph>
Cushing at his straightest, Price at his campest, and lots of witty
dialogue for both of them.
Thanks Peter. I'm a fan of Price and Cushing, but have always
stayed away from Dr. Who (which has always sounded silly to me).
I'll add this to my listening list as well.
How can an admirer of Poe complain about silliness?
Poe's comedies can be wonderfully silly in a manner similar to Monty Python; but I suppose you're making a derogatory reference to his horror tales. If so, which do you find silly, and why?
Post by Peter J Ross
When Robert Holmes contributed to Doctor Who, as writer or script
editor, the balance between silliness and seriousness was just about
perfect, but in fact his only involvement with "Aliens in the Mind"
was to provide some ideas, and perhaps a plot outline.
The plot doesn't amount to much, but Price and Cushing both give
excellent performances.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
I'm actually in the middle of re-reading one of my Poe
collections at this time (it's been a while), and find them every
bit as mesmerizing as when I'd first read them 40-ish years ago.
Like you, I enjoy re-reading books I admired as a child. Unlike
you, I don't imagine that Anthony Buckeridge, Richmal Crompton and
Frank Richards are gods.
I'd first attempted to read Poe when I was twelve... and failed
miserably. Even today (after having read his stories numerous
times), I'm still required to turn to the dictionary (a.k.a. Google)
to look up various words, references and foreign phrases.
I think I first read Poe's short stories (with great enthusiasm) when
I was about fourteen. Within a couple of years I'd moved on to Waugh
and Joyce. I don't remember ever thinking much of Poe's poems, and
what I've read more recently of his non-fictional prose doesn't
impress me.
I first read "The Raven" in my 8th grade English class and immediately committed it to memory. Everything about it thrilled and fascinated me with an intensity I hadn't felt since I'd read Stevenson's "A Child's Garden of Verses," three years before. Poe's manic rhythms reflected his narrator's increasing hysteria as he masochistically asks the bird questions that will ultimately destroy any chance he has at finding emotional peace.

"And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon’s that is dreaming,
And the lamp-light o’er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted—nevermore!"

From that moment on, Poe became a major force in my creative life.
Post by Peter J Ross
In all humility, I think it would be Poe who'd have to look up my
words, references and foreign phrases rather than vice versa.
Well, it's not an even playing field. A great deal has happened (historically) since Poe's death (almost) 170 years ago, which he would necessarily be unfamiliar with. Culturally, many books have been written, words coined, things invented... Poe wouldn't know what a record-player was, or a motion picture, or an automobile.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
And, apart from the odd poems appearing in high school English lit
texts and Norton-esque anthologies, I hadn't read Blake or Whitman
until I was in my early twenties.
I hope you didn't waste *all* your time in your early twenties.
That depends on one's point of view. I fell in love, had my heart broken, drank a lot of cheap and/or homemade wine, carried my old movie addiction to new heights, wrote a lot of poetry, painted, spent entire afternoons improvising on the piano, and recuperated from a debilitating car crash.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
My favorite authors as a child were Eugene Field, Mark Twain and
Robert Louis Stevenson -- all of whom I continue to admire today.
I don't know Field. Twain is all right. Stevenson is great.
Here's a short poem by Field that I'd memorized when I was 7 or 8:

https://www.bartleby.com/104/5.html

Although I'd learned it in song form from my grandmother.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
As for actual children's books, I liked Maurice Sendak, Remy Charlip
and Hans Christian Andersen.
I haven't read Sendak; I've never heard of Charlip; I ought to read
Andersen.
Sendak's "Where the Wild Things Are" is pretty much required reading on this side of the Atlantic. It's about a mischievous boy named Max who is sent to bed without his supper. However, rather than feeling any remorse, he imagines himself sailing away to an island of monsters who proclaim him their king and throw him a wild rumpus.

Here's link to a few of the pages from Charlip's "Arm in Arm (A Collection of Connections, Endless Tales, Reiterations, and other Echolalia)":

http://www.vintagechildrensbooksmykidloves.com/2010/10/arm-in-arm.html

I got a copy from the Weekly Reader book club my mother (a grammar school teacher) had enrolled me in, and she took one look at the drawings, and wanted to send it back along with a letter expressing her outrage over their having sent a 6-year old boy a book promoting the then current drug culture.

I convinced her that we ought to read it once before she sent it back (it had a sticker announcing that it had won some children's book award on the front cover); fortunately, she relented and it ended up becoming my favorite book for the next few years.

As to Andersen... I can only shake my head in disbelief.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Suffice to say that I practically born with a highly discriminating
sense of literary taste.
I neither share nor approve of your taste.
The first "grown-up" books I read were /The Three Musketeers/ (in
translation), /Treasure Island/ (possibly abridged) and /Ivanhoe/,
which was my favourite.
Nowadays I don't think much of Dumas, but Stevenson is one of the
greats, and Scott is probably the greatest of all English prose
writers, and one of the very few who could hold his head high in the
company of the Greeks and Romans.
I've only read some of Scott's verses "Marmion" and such. I've recently gotten a copy of his collected "Poetical Works," which I'll be reading as soon as I finish up with Poe.
Will Dockery
2019-09-01 19:31:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In all humility, I think it would be Poe who'd have to look up my
words, references and foreign phrases rather than vice versa.
Well, it's not an even playing field. A great deal has happened (historically) since Poe's death (almost) 170 years ago, which he would necessarily be unfamiliar with. Culturally, many books have been written, words coined, things invented... Poe wouldn't know what a record-player was, or a motion picture, or an automobile.
Good point.
Peter J Ross
2019-09-13 14:12:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 1 Sep 2019 12:01:17 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Tue, 27 Aug 2019 11:21:12 -0700
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Tue, 27 Aug 2019 10:44:53 -0700
Post by Michael Pendragon
I saw Vincent Price reading Poe (backed by Lex Baxter) when I
was 14 or 15 and loved it ("An Evening With Edgar Allan Poe,"
1970). I'm looking forward to hearing this set... when I get
the chance.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02x5kph>
Cushing at his straightest, Price at his campest, and lots of
witty dialogue for both of them.
Thanks Peter. I'm a fan of Price and Cushing, but have always
stayed away from Dr. Who (which has always sounded silly to me).
I'll add this to my listening list as well.
How can an admirer of Poe complain about silliness?
Poe's comedies can be wonderfully silly in a manner similar to Monty
Python; but I suppose you're making a derogatory reference to his
horror tales. If so, which do you find silly, and why?
I don't find Poe's "horror tales" any sillier than anybody else's. The
genre is inherently silly, and the trick is to hide the silliness from
the reader in the midst of realistic detail. Poe isn't as good at
disguising the silliness as M R James (the Master) is, but he's not
bad.

Poe's silliness is mostly exhibited in his silly poems. Which of them
do I find silly? All of them. Why do I find them silly? For at least
two reasons.

1. The realistic detail, which disguises the silliness of his stories,
is absent from the poems. Silliness and Implausibility and the Bad
Breath hold illimitable dominion over all of them.

2. Poe's metres and rhymes are ideally suited for comic light verse.
When such metres and rhymes are used for purportedly serious purposes,
silliness is the result.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
When Robert Holmes contributed to Doctor Who, as writer or script
editor, the balance between silliness and seriousness was just
about perfect, but in fact his only involvement with "Aliens in the
Mind" was to provide some ideas, and perhaps a plot outline.
The plot doesn't amount to much, but Price and Cushing both give
excellent performances.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
I'm actually in the middle of re-reading one of my Poe
collections at this time (it's been a while), and find them
every bit as mesmerizing as when I'd first read them 40-ish
years ago.
Like you, I enjoy re-reading books I admired as a child. Unlike
you, I don't imagine that Anthony Buckeridge, Richmal Crompton
and Frank Richards are gods.
I'd first attempted to read Poe when I was twelve... and failed
miserably. Even today (after having read his stories numerous
times), I'm still required to turn to the dictionary (a.k.a.
Google) to look up various words, references and foreign phrases.
I think I first read Poe's short stories (with great enthusiasm)
when I was about fourteen. Within a couple of years I'd moved on to
Waugh and Joyce. I don't remember ever thinking much of Poe's
poems, and what I've read more recently of his non-fictional prose
doesn't impress me.
I first read "The Raven" in my 8th grade English class and
immediately committed it to memory.
At about the same age, I was discovering and memorising real poetry.
"When I consider how my light is spent / ere half my days in this dark
world and wide, / and that one talent which is death to hide / lodged
with me useless, though my soul more bent / to serve therewith my
maker..."

One of the big differences between you and me is that you read the
books you were told to read. This is probably the reason why you
admire the same authors who are admired by the literary establishment
you claim to despise.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Everything about it thrilled
and fascinated me with an intensity I hadn't felt since I'd read
Stevenson's "A Child's Garden of Verses," three years before.
Aren't teenage hormones fun?
Post by Michael Pendragon
Poe's
manic rhythms reflected his narrator's increasing hysteria as he
masochistically asks the bird questions that will ultimately destroy
any chance he has at finding emotional peace.
"And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon’s that is dreaming,
And the lamp-light o’er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted—nevermore!"
From that moment on, Poe became a major force in my creative life.
The author of "CAERLEON" and much other ludicrous rubbish can't claim
to have had a creative life.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In all humility, I think it would be Poe who'd have to look up my
words, references and foreign phrases rather than vice versa.
Well, it's not an even playing field. A great deal has happened
(historically) since Poe's death (almost) 170 years ago, which he
would necessarily be unfamiliar with. Culturally, many books have
been written, words coined, things invented... Poe wouldn't know
what a record-player was, or a motion picture, or an automobile.
No, I rarely mention the destructive innovations of recent times.

I can't remember ever having to look up a reference in Poe, but I
doubt if he'd understand the .signature attached to this post.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
And, apart from the odd poems appearing in high school English
lit texts and Norton-esque anthologies, I hadn't read Blake or
Whitman until I was in my early twenties.
I hope you didn't waste *all* your time in your early twenties.
That depends on one's point of view. I fell in love, had my heart
broken, drank a lot of cheap and/or homemade wine, carried my old
movie addiction to new heights, wrote a lot of poetry, painted,
spent entire afternoons improvising on the piano, and recuperated
from a debilitating car crash.
I did most of those things too. It must have all gone wrong for you at
a later stage.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
My favorite authors as a child were Eugene Field, Mark Twain and
Robert Louis Stevenson -- all of whom I continue to admire today.
I don't know Field. Twain is all right. Stevenson is great.
https://www.bartleby.com/104/5.html
Ewwww!

<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
As to Andersen... I can only shake my head in disbelief.
Although I have a theoretical understanding of Danish grammar, I can't
read Danish texts.

In my experience of French, German, Latin and Greek literature, all
translators are liars. Robert Frost said that poetry is that which is
lost in translation, but prose is lost in translation too.

If I live for ever, I'll read HCA. That's a promise!
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Suffice to say that I practically born with a highly
discriminating sense of literary taste.
I neither share nor approve of your taste.
The first "grown-up" books I read were /The Three Musketeers/ (in
translation), /Treasure Island/ (possibly abridged) and /Ivanhoe/,
which was my favourite.
Nowadays I don't think much of Dumas, but Stevenson is one of the
greats, and Scott is probably the greatest of all English prose
writers, and one of the very few who could hold his head high in
the company of the Greeks and Romans.
I've only read some of Scott's verses "Marmion" and such. I've
recently gotten a copy of his collected "Poetical Works," which I'll
be reading as soon as I finish up with Poe.
If you've got the old J Logie Robertson edition, turn to page 730,
where you'll find the best of all old Scottish songs. The reason it's
the best is that it's the one that's touched by Sir Walter's
incomparable genius.


"Why weep ye by the tide, ladie,
Why weep ye by the tide?
I'll wed ye to my youngest son,
And ye sall be his bride:
And ye sall be his bride, ladie,
Sae comely to be seen" --
But aye she loot the tears down fa'
For Jock of Hazeldean.

"Now let this wilfu' grief be done,
And dry that cheek so pale;
Young Frank is Chief of Errington,
And Lord of Langley-Dale:
His step is first in peaceful ha',
His sword in battle keen" -
But aye she loot the tears down fa'
For Jock of Hazeldean.

"A chain of gold ye sall not lack,
Nor braid to bind your hair;
Nor mettled hound, nor managed hawk,
Nor palfry fresh and fair;
And you, the foremost of them a',
Sall ride our forest queen" -
But aye she loot the tears down fa'
For Jock of Hazeldean.

The kirk was deck'd at morning tide,
The tapers glimmer'd fair;
The priest and bridegroom wait the bride,
And dame and knight are there.
They sought her baith by bower and ha';
The ladie was not seen!
She's o'er the border and awa'
Wi' Jock of Hazeldean."


And here's Barbara Dickson singing a modernised version of the text:


--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
Michael Pendragon
2019-09-13 15:47:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 1 Sep 2019 12:01:17 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Tue, 27 Aug 2019 11:21:12 -0700
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Tue, 27 Aug 2019 10:44:53 -0700
Post by Michael Pendragon
I saw Vincent Price reading Poe (backed by Lex Baxter) when I
was 14 or 15 and loved it ("An Evening With Edgar Allan Poe,"
1970). I'm looking forward to hearing this set... when I get
the chance.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02x5kph>
Cushing at his straightest, Price at his campest, and lots of
witty dialogue for both of them.
Thanks Peter. I'm a fan of Price and Cushing, but have always
stayed away from Dr. Who (which has always sounded silly to me).
I'll add this to my listening list as well.
How can an admirer of Poe complain about silliness?
Poe's comedies can be wonderfully silly in a manner similar to Monty
Python; but I suppose you're making a derogatory reference to his
horror tales. If so, which do you find silly, and why?
I don't find Poe's "horror tales" any sillier than anybody else's. The
genre is inherently silly, and the trick is to hide the silliness from
the reader in the midst of realistic detail. Poe isn't as good at
disguising the silliness as M R James (the Master) is, but he's not
bad.
I read a short collection of M.R. James about 15-20 years ago: don't remember a thing about it, other than that I found it dull. Algernon Blackwood gets my vote for the Master of Horror tales.

Poe is best known of his horror tales, but they constitute only about a third of his tales. The beauty of Poe's horror takes is that they express various psychological conditions and manias: they're more often tales of madness and murder than of ghosts and
transmogrification (and these always leave the possibility of a non-supernatural explanation open).

"The Fall of the House of Usher," for instance is about the collapse of Roderick Usher's sanity (the house forming a symbolic double of his head -- and reinforced by the duplicate symbolism of Usher's poem, "The Haunted Palace"). Roderick represents the rational ego conscious that, much like Blake's "Urizen," has repressed his subconscious (symbolized by his sister, Madeline, who he seals in the family vault while still alive). A mind divided against itself cannot stand, and the "house" comes crashing down into the blackened tarn of unconsciousness and/or death.

My favorite Poe tales, however, are his black comedies like "Never Bet the Devil Your Head," "Loss of Breath," and "The Literary Life of Thingum Bob, Esq."
Post by Peter J Ross
Poe's silliness is mostly exhibited in his silly poems. Which of them
do I find silly? All of them. Why do I find them silly? For at least
two reasons.
1. The realistic detail, which disguises the silliness of his stories,
is absent from the poems. Silliness and Implausibility and the Bad
Breath hold illimitable dominion over all of them.
"Bad Breath"?

What is silly or implausible about "Alone"?

FROM childhood’s hour I have not been
As others were — I have not seen
As others saw — I could not bring
My passions from a common spring.
From the same source I have not taken
My sorrow; I could not awaken
My heart to joy at the same tone;
And all I lov’d, I lov’d alone.

Then — in my childhood — in the dawn
Of a most stormy life — was drawn
From ev’ry depth of good and ill
The mystery which binds me still:
From the torrent, or the fountain,
From the red cliff of the mountain,
From the sun that ’round me roll’d
In its autumn tint of gold —
From the lightning in the sky
As it pass’d me flying by —
From the thunder and the storm,
And the cloud that took the form
(When the rest of Heaven was blue)
Of a demon in my view.

The first stanza is brilliant, and expresses a sentiment I with which I strongly identify. The second stanza is vague and only becomes intelligible when one has read Byron's "Manfred" on which it is based.

Then there are the closing stanzas of "Israfel," which offer one of the strongest examples of the Romantic stance on the human condition that I have ever come across:

Yes, Heaven is thine; but this
Is a world of sweets and sours;
Our flowers are merely — flowers,
And the shadow of thy perfect bliss
Is the sunshine of ours.

If I could dwell
Where Israfel
Hath dwelt, and he where I,
He might not sing so wildly well
A mortal melody,
While a bolder note than this might swell
From my lyre within the sky.
Post by Peter J Ross
2. Poe's metres and rhymes are ideally suited for comic light verse.
When such metres and rhymes are used for purportedly serious purposes,
silliness is the result.
I see them as exquisitely beautiful:

O! NOTHING earthly save the ray
(Thrown back from flowers) of Beauty’s eye,
As in those gardens where the day
Springs from the gems of Circassy —
O! nothing earthly save the thrill
Of melody in woodland rill —
Or (music of the passion-hearted)
Joy’s voice so peacefully departed
That like the murmur in the shell,
Its echo dwelleth and will dwell —
Oh, nothing of the dross of ours —
Yet all the beauty — all the flowers
That list our Love, and deck our bowers —
Adorn yon world afar, afar —
The wandering star.

Much like Nesace, upon reading the above passage from "Al Aaraaf," I feel as though I've just "look'd into Infinity -- and knelt."
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
When Robert Holmes contributed to Doctor Who, as writer or script
editor, the balance between silliness and seriousness was just
about perfect, but in fact his only involvement with "Aliens in the
Mind" was to provide some ideas, and perhaps a plot outline.
The plot doesn't amount to much, but Price and Cushing both give
excellent performances.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
I'm actually in the middle of re-reading one of my Poe
collections at this time (it's been a while), and find them
every bit as mesmerizing as when I'd first read them 40-ish
years ago.
Like you, I enjoy re-reading books I admired as a child. Unlike
you, I don't imagine that Anthony Buckeridge, Richmal Crompton
and Frank Richards are gods.
I'd first attempted to read Poe when I was twelve... and failed
miserably. Even today (after having read his stories numerous
times), I'm still required to turn to the dictionary (a.k.a.
Google) to look up various words, references and foreign phrases.
I think I first read Poe's short stories (with great enthusiasm)
when I was about fourteen. Within a couple of years I'd moved on to
Waugh and Joyce. I don't remember ever thinking much of Poe's
poems, and what I've read more recently of his non-fictional prose
doesn't impress me.
I first read "The Raven" in my 8th grade English class and
immediately committed it to memory.
At about the same age, I was discovering and memorising real poetry.
I'd venture that you were too young to appreciate it at that age.

The manic meter of "The Raven" can come across as silly at times, but the conclusion is mesmerizingly chilling:

And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon’s that is dreaming,
And the lamp-light o’er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted — nevermore!
Post by Peter J Ross
"When I consider how my light is spent / ere half my days in this dark
world and wide, / and that one talent which is death to hide / lodged
with me useless, though my soul more bent / to serve therewith my
maker..."
One of the big differences between you and me is that you read the
books you were told to read. This is probably the reason why you
admire the same authors who are admired by the literary establishment
you claim to despise.
Right. Like Milton isn't admired.

I was told to read Milton, Pope, Homer, and other favorites of yours as well. And I have read them (albeit some more thoroughly than others).

The authors that I like are the ones who appeal to my Romantic side: those who pit their protagonists in battles against God (Manfred, Prometheus, Ahab, Wolf Larsen) -- which I see as the essence of the human condition (that is, for those of us with the sense to see it for what it is).

Poetically, its works like Henley's "Invictus" that make my spirit thrill with an electrical current each time I read them:

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Everything about it thrilled
and fascinated me with an intensity I hadn't felt since I'd read
Stevenson's "A Child's Garden of Verses," three years before.
Aren't teenage hormones fun?
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up
Not me!" -- P. Pan
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Poe's
manic rhythms reflected his narrator's increasing hysteria as he
masochistically asks the bird questions that will ultimately destroy
any chance he has at finding emotional peace.
"And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon’s that is dreaming,
And the lamp-light o’er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted—nevermore!"
From that moment on, Poe became a major force in my creative life.
The author of "CAERLEON" and much other ludicrous rubbish can't claim
to have had a creative life.
"Caerleon" is a relatively early work from my "Olde English" period. I'm rather fond of it, but the "OE" poems hardly represent the bulk of my work.

I'd recommend "Lost Poems," "Daybreak," "I Walk With Death" and "My Wild Woodland Home" as being more representative of my style.

https://www.youtube.com/user/MaleficaPendragon/videos?view=0&sort=dd&shelf_id=1&view_as=subscriber
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In all humility, I think it would be Poe who'd have to look up my
words, references and foreign phrases rather than vice versa.
Well, it's not an even playing field. A great deal has happened
(historically) since Poe's death (almost) 170 years ago, which he
would necessarily be unfamiliar with. Culturally, many books have
been written, words coined, things invented... Poe wouldn't know
what a record-player was, or a motion picture, or an automobile.
No, I rarely mention the destructive innovations of recent times.
I can't remember ever having to look up a reference in Poe, but I
doubt if he'd understand the .signature attached to this post.
He quotes enough greek and latin passages in his tales to justify my assumption that he would.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
And, apart from the odd poems appearing in high school English
lit texts and Norton-esque anthologies, I hadn't read Blake or
Whitman until I was in my early twenties.
I hope you didn't waste *all* your time in your early twenties.
That depends on one's point of view. I fell in love, had my heart
broken, drank a lot of cheap and/or homemade wine, carried my old
movie addiction to new heights, wrote a lot of poetry, painted,
spent entire afternoons improvising on the piano, and recuperated
from a debilitating car crash.
I did most of those things too. It must have all gone wrong for you at
a later stage.
I went to college, got a job as an assistant editor in NYC, fell in love, got married, raised three children, published a pair of indie literary zines, and continued to waste my spare time reading and writing poetry, watching old movies, drinking moderately inexpensive bourbon and making a nuisance of myself in various online groups like AAPC.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
My favorite authors as a child were Eugene Field, Mark Twain and
Robert Louis Stevenson -- all of whom I continue to admire today.
I don't know Field. Twain is all right. Stevenson is great.
https://www.bartleby.com/104/5.html
Ewwww!
<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
As to Andersen... I can only shake my head in disbelief.
Although I have a theoretical understanding of Danish grammar, I can't
read Danish texts.
In my experience of French, German, Latin and Greek literature, all
translators are liars. Robert Frost said that poetry is that which is
lost in translation, but prose is lost in translation too.
I wholeheartedly agree. But being monolingual, I make do with such resources as are available to me. That is, I realize that I'll never be able to appreciate Andersen as I might in his original language, I feel it is important to know the content of his tales. "The Steadfast Tin Soldier" is a beautiful story, regardless of the translation, and as it has formed an important part of world culture, some familiarity with it is required for any educated (and/or literate) individual.
Post by Peter J Ross
If I live for ever, I'll read HCA. That's a promise!
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Suffice to say that I practically born with a highly
discriminating sense of literary taste.
I neither share nor approve of your taste.
The first "grown-up" books I read were /The Three Musketeers/ (in
translation), /Treasure Island/ (possibly abridged) and /Ivanhoe/,
which was my favourite.
Nowadays I don't think much of Dumas, but Stevenson is one of the
greats, and Scott is probably the greatest of all English prose
writers, and one of the very few who could hold his head high in
the company of the Greeks and Romans.
I've only read some of Scott's verses "Marmion" and such. I've
recently gotten a copy of his collected "Poetical Works," which I'll
be reading as soon as I finish up with Poe.
If you've got the old J Logie Robertson edition, turn to page 730,
where you'll find the best of all old Scottish songs. The reason it's
the best is that it's the one that's touched by Sir Walter's
incomparable genius.
"Why weep ye by the tide, ladie,
Why weep ye by the tide?
I'll wed ye to my youngest son,
And ye sall be his bride, ladie,
Sae comely to be seen" --
But aye she loot the tears down fa'
For Jock of Hazeldean.
"Now let this wilfu' grief be done,
And dry that cheek so pale;
Young Frank is Chief of Errington,
His step is first in peaceful ha',
His sword in battle keen" -
But aye she loot the tears down fa'
For Jock of Hazeldean.
"A chain of gold ye sall not lack,
Nor braid to bind your hair;
Nor mettled hound, nor managed hawk,
Nor palfry fresh and fair;
And you, the foremost of them a',
Sall ride our forest queen" -
But aye she loot the tears down fa'
For Jock of Hazeldean.
The kirk was deck'd at morning tide,
The tapers glimmer'd fair;
The priest and bridegroom wait the bride,
And dame and knight are there.
They sought her baith by bower and ha';
The ladie was not seen!
She's o'er the border and awa'
Wi' Jock of Hazeldean."
I'll have to check the editor tonight; but I am familiar with the lines you've quoted.
Post by Peter J Ross
http://youtu.be/3qV5KxMcpHw
Very nice. The arrangement is a little too regal for how I imagine it being sung, but it well enough.
Zod
2019-09-13 18:12:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Good read......
Peter J Ross
2019-09-15 14:48:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:47:46 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 1 Sep 2019 12:01:17 -0700
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Tue, 27 Aug 2019 11:21:12 -0700
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Tue, 27 Aug 2019 10:44:53
Post by Michael Pendragon
I saw Vincent Price reading Poe (backed by Lex Baxter) when
I was 14 or 15 and loved it ("An Evening With Edgar Allan
Poe," 1970). I'm looking forward to hearing this set...
when I get the chance.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02x5kph>
Cushing at his straightest, Price at his campest, and lots of
witty dialogue for both of them.
Thanks Peter. I'm a fan of Price and Cushing, but have always
stayed away from Dr. Who (which has always sounded silly to
me). I'll add this to my listening list as well.
How can an admirer of Poe complain about silliness?
Poe's comedies can be wonderfully silly in a manner similar to
Monty Python; but I suppose you're making a derogatory reference
to his horror tales. If so, which do you find silly, and why?
I don't find Poe's "horror tales" any sillier than anybody else's.
The genre is inherently silly, and the trick is to hide the
silliness from the reader in the midst of realistic detail. Poe
isn't as good at disguising the silliness as M R James (the Master)
is, but he's not bad.
I read a short collection of M.R. James about 15-20 years ago: don't
remember a thing about it, other than that I found it dull.
Algernon Blackwood gets my vote for the Master of Horror tales.
I like Blackwood's stories, but he never makes me glance over my
shoulder in case something nasty is lurking there.

He had taken the crucifix off, and laid it on the table, when
his attention was caught by an object lying on the red cloth
just by his left elbow. Two or three ideas of what it might be
flitted through his brain with their own incalculable
quickness.
"A penwiper? No, no such thing in the house. A rat? No, too
black. A large spider? I trust to goodness not - no. Good God!
a hand like the hand in that picture!"

If you find "Canon Alberic's Scrapbook" dull, there's no hope for you.
Of course, the beginning of the story is dull, but intentionally so.
The hairy hand glimpsed out of the corner of the eye is frightening
because the context (a world of comfortable armchairs and penwipers)
is so ordinary.

<poesnip>

I'm not going to convince you that Poe's verse is silly, and you're
not going to convince me that it isn't, and neither of us is going to
convince anybody else, because nobody else is reading, so let's drop
it.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
"When I consider how my light is spent / ere half my days in this
dark world and wide, / and that one talent which is death to hide /
lodged with me useless, though my soul more bent / to serve
therewith my maker..."
One of the big differences between you and me is that you read the
books you were told to read. This is probably the reason why you
admire the same authors who are admired by the literary
establishment you claim to despise.
Right. Like Milton isn't admired.
He isn't admired in our universities as Poe, Blake and Dickinson are.
He isn't taught in our schools as they are. As long ago as the 1970s,
I learned about Milton from my Latin teacher, not from my English
teacher, and I read him at home, not at school. In English classes,
Poe, Blake and Dickinson, along with others who were even worse,
resembled the Bad Breath in holding illimitable dominion over all.
Post by Michael Pendragon
I was told to read Milton, Pope, Homer, and other favorites of yours
as well. And I have read them (albeit some more thoroughly than
others).
If you were given such advice, you went to a better school than mine.
Post by Michael Pendragon
those who pit their protagonists in battles against God (Manfred,
Prometheus, Ahab, Wolf Larsen) -- which I see as the essence of the
human condition (that is, for those of us with the sense to see it
for what it is).
If you see the human condition for what it is, why can't you (and all
those silly old poets) accept it as a fact instead of whining about
it?

The difference between your favourite poets and mine is that mine are
realists, yours mere fantasists.

(Mine also differ from yours in being well educated and technically
accomplished.)

<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
As to Andersen... I can only shake my head in disbelief.
Although I have a theoretical understanding of Danish grammar, I
can't read Danish texts.
In my experience of French, German, Latin and Greek literature, all
translators are liars. Robert Frost said that poetry is that which
is lost in translation, but prose is lost in translation too.
I wholeheartedly agree. But being monolingual, I make do with such
resources as are available to me. That is, I realize that I'll
never be able to appreciate Andersen as I might in his original
language, I feel it is important to know the content of his tales.
"The Steadfast Tin Soldier" is a beautiful story, regardless of the
translation, and as it has formed an important part of world
culture, some familiarity with it is required for any educated
(and/or literate) individual.
Of course I'm familiar with "the content of his tales". Who isn't? I
read versions of them in infancy, just as I read versions of the Robin
Hood stories and similar stuff.

Have you read La Fontaine's fables? If not, "I can only shake my head
in disbelief."

<scottsnip>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
http://youtu.be/3qV5KxMcpHw
Very nice. The arrangement is a little too regal for how I imagine
it being sung, but it well enough.
The accompaniment is performed mostly on a synthesiser. I'd rather
hear it played on real instruments, but I don't object to its cheerful
style.

Vocals: Barbara Dickson
Synths and Irish Bouzouki: Kevin McAlea
Percussion: Martin Ditcham
Crumhorn: Terry Wincott

You might prefer the version BD performed circa 1970, accompanied only
by her own guitar, which is available on her "B4 Seventy Four" album.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00AAIYB20
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
Michael Pendragon
2019-09-16 04:02:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:47:46 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 1 Sep 2019 12:01:17 -0700
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Tue, 27 Aug 2019 11:21:12 -0700
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Tue, 27 Aug 2019 10:44:53
Post by Michael Pendragon
I saw Vincent Price reading Poe (backed by Lex Baxter) when
I was 14 or 15 and loved it ("An Evening With Edgar Allan
Poe," 1970). I'm looking forward to hearing this set...
when I get the chance.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02x5kph>
Cushing at his straightest, Price at his campest, and lots of
witty dialogue for both of them.
Thanks Peter. I'm a fan of Price and Cushing, but have always
stayed away from Dr. Who (which has always sounded silly to
me). I'll add this to my listening list as well.
How can an admirer of Poe complain about silliness?
Poe's comedies can be wonderfully silly in a manner similar to
Monty Python; but I suppose you're making a derogatory reference
to his horror tales. If so, which do you find silly, and why?
I don't find Poe's "horror tales" any sillier than anybody else's.
The genre is inherently silly, and the trick is to hide the
silliness from the reader in the midst of realistic detail. Poe
isn't as good at disguising the silliness as M R James (the Master)
is, but he's not bad.
I read a short collection of M.R. James about 15-20 years ago: don't
remember a thing about it, other than that I found it dull.
Algernon Blackwood gets my vote for the Master of Horror tales.
I like Blackwood's stories, but he never makes me glance over my
shoulder in case something nasty is lurking there.
He had taken the crucifix off, and laid it on the table, when
his attention was caught by an object lying on the red cloth
just by his left elbow. Two or three ideas of what it might be
flitted through his brain with their own incalculable
quickness.
"A penwiper? No, no such thing in the house. A rat? No, too
black. A large spider? I trust to goodness not - no. Good God!
a hand like the hand in that picture!"
If you find "Canon Alberic's Scrapbook" dull, there's no hope for you.
Of course, the beginning of the story is dull, but intentionally so.
The hairy hand glimpsed out of the corner of the eye is frightening
because the context (a world of comfortable armchairs and penwipers)
is so ordinary.
The passage you've quoted is certainly dull. As to the story, I can't say, as I don't recall a thing about any of those I'd read (titles and plots included).
Post by Peter J Ross
<poesnip>
I'm not going to convince you that Poe's verse is silly, and you're
not going to convince me that it isn't, and neither of us is going to
convince anybody else, because nobody else is reading, so let's drop
it.
Fair enough.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
"When I consider how my light is spent / ere half my days in this
dark world and wide, / and that one talent which is death to hide /
lodged with me useless, though my soul more bent / to serve
therewith my maker..."
One of the big differences between you and me is that you read the
books you were told to read. This is probably the reason why you
admire the same authors who are admired by the literary
establishment you claim to despise.
Right. Like Milton isn't admired.
He isn't admired in our universities as Poe, Blake and Dickinson are.
He isn't taught in our schools as they are. As long ago as the 1970s,
I learned about Milton from my Latin teacher, not from my English
teacher, and I read him at home, not at school. In English classes,
Poe, Blake and Dickinson, along with others who were even worse,
resembled the Bad Breath in holding illimitable dominion over all.
Both my high school and college English lit. courses included selections from "Paradise Lost." I really don't see how one could overlook Milton when presenting an overview of English lit. IIRC, the basic textbooks ran as follows: Anonymous ballads ("Gae Up an' Bar the Door," "Barbara Allen," etc.), "Beowulf," "The Canterbury Tales," Elizabethan (Donne, Marlowe, Shakespeare), "Paradise Lost," Pope and the Enlightenment, Pepys, The Romantics (Blake, Byron, Shelley, Keats), Wordsworth, Coleridge, Poe, Dickens, Twain, Emerson, Thoreau, Crane, Melville, Dickinson, Whitman.

Modern English literature is a separate course.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
I was told to read Milton, Pope, Homer, and other favorites of yours
as well. And I have read them (albeit some more thoroughly than
others).
If you were given such advice, you went to a better school than mine.
Perhaps you've simply forgotten the curriculum. Milton was always treated as a towering figure in English literature; and I really can't imagine an English lit class not including him.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
those who pit their protagonists in battles against God (Manfred,
Prometheus, Ahab, Wolf Larsen) -- which I see as the essence of the
human condition (that is, for those of us with the sense to see it
for what it is).
If you see the human condition for what it is, why can't you (and all
those silly old poets) accept it as a fact instead of whining about
it?
Which ones whined about it? They were rebels -- denying God, Satan, Fate, TPTB, whatever any power over their destiny.
Post by Peter J Ross
The difference between your favourite poets and mine is that mine are
realists, yours mere fantasists.
Mine were mostly atheists or pantheists (which is pretty much the same thing). They might have drawn on Christian, Greek, Islamic and other mythologies, but their message was always one of humanism.
Post by Peter J Ross
(Mine also differ from yours in being well educated and technically
accomplished.)
Of those whose works I'd alluded to immediately above (Byron, Shelley, Melville and London) all had some college education (although only Byron finished).
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
As to Andersen... I can only shake my head in disbelief.
Although I have a theoretical understanding of Danish grammar, I
can't read Danish texts.
In my experience of French, German, Latin and Greek literature, all
translators are liars. Robert Frost said that poetry is that which
is lost in translation, but prose is lost in translation too.
I wholeheartedly agree. But being monolingual, I make do with such
resources as are available to me. That is, I realize that I'll
never be able to appreciate Andersen as I might in his original
language, I feel it is important to know the content of his tales.
"The Steadfast Tin Soldier" is a beautiful story, regardless of the
translation, and as it has formed an important part of world
culture, some familiarity with it is required for any educated
(and/or literate) individual.
Of course I'm familiar with "the content of his tales". Who isn't? I
read versions of them in infancy, just as I read versions of the Robin
Hood stories and similar stuff.
Have you read La Fontaine's fables? If not, "I can only shake my head
in disbelief."
Come to think of it, I did -- in my early twenties.
Post by Peter J Ross
<scottsnip>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
http://youtu.be/3qV5KxMcpHw
Very nice. The arrangement is a little too regal for how I imagine
it being sung, but it well enough.
The accompaniment is performed mostly on a synthesiser. I'd rather
hear it played on real instruments, but I don't object to its cheerful
style.
Vocals: Barbara Dickson
Synths and Irish Bouzouki: Kevin McAlea
Percussion: Martin Ditcham
Crumhorn: Terry Wincott
You might prefer the version BD performed circa 1970, accompanied only
by her own guitar, which is available on her "B4 Seventy Four" album.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00AAIYB20
That sounds like it would be more to my liking.
Peter J Ross
2019-09-19 21:06:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 15 Sep 2019 21:02:56 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:47:46 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 1 Sep 2019 12:01:17 -0700
<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Right. Like Milton isn't admired.
He isn't admired in our universities as Poe, Blake and Dickinson
are. He isn't taught in our schools as they are. As long ago as
the 1970s, I learned about Milton from my Latin teacher, not from
my English teacher, and I read him at home, not at school. In
English classes, Poe, Blake and Dickinson, along with others who
were even worse, resembled the Bad Breath in holding illimitable
dominion over all.
Both my high school and college English lit. courses included
selections from "Paradise Lost." I really don't see how one could
overlook Milton when presenting an overview of English lit.
I can't see any sense in it either, but it's what's been happening in
British schools since at least the 1970s. I hear rumours that it's
been happening in American schools too.
Post by Michael Pendragon
IIRC,
the basic textbooks ran as follows: Anonymous ballads ("Gae Up an'
Bar the Door," "Barbara Allen," etc.), "Beowulf," "The Canterbury
Tales," Elizabethan (Donne, Marlowe, Shakespeare), "Paradise Lost,"
Pope and the Enlightenment, Pepys, The Romantics (Blake, Byron,
Shelley, Keats), Wordsworth, Coleridge, Poe, Dickens, Twain,
Emerson, Thoreau, Crane, Melville, Dickinson, Whitman.
I was taught Shakespeare, though I was taught in a way that almost
destroyed my potential enthusiasm. (I still find him more difficult to
enjoy than Racine, Goethe or the Greeks.)

Otherwise, I wasn't taught any writer earlier than ~The Romantics~ in
English Literature classes.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Modern English literature is a separate course.
Is there such a thing as modern English literature? Very nearly all of
it seems to me to be modern English garbage.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
I was told to read Milton, Pope, Homer, and other favorites of
yours as well. And I have read them (albeit some more thoroughly
than others).
If you were given such advice, you went to a better school than mine.
Perhaps you've simply forgotten the curriculum. Milton was always
treated as a towering figure in English literature; and I really
can't imagine an English lit class not including him.
No. I read Milton in secret, when I was expected to be reading Norman
MacCaig and Thom Gunn.

I don't dislike the writings of MacCaig and Gunn, but they're designed
to be read and understood by anybody who can read and understand
anything. Where did the idea come from that such writings need to be
taught?
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
The authors that I like are the ones who appeal to my Romantic
side: those who pit their protagonists in battles against God
(Manfred, Prometheus, Ahab, Wolf Larsen) -- which I see as the
essence of the human condition (that is, for those of us with the
sense to see it for what it is).
If you see the human condition for what it is, why can't you (and
all those silly old poets) accept it as a fact instead of whining
about it?
Which ones whined about it? They were rebels -- denying God, Satan,
Fate, TPTB, whatever any power over their destiny.
They lost. Then they whined. In the case of Prometheus, he whined all
the way through a whole play that used to be attributed to Aeschylus
but is now thought to be the work of a less intelligent dramatist.

To repeat what I've told you before: The hero of /Paradise Lost/ is
Adam, not Satan; Byron's masterpiece is the story of Don Juan, not the
story of Manfred; the hero of /Moby Dick/ is "Ishmael", not Ahab.

It's a part of growing up to learn that glamorous villains aren't
heroes.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
The difference between your favourite poets and mine is that mine
are realists, yours mere fantasists.
Mine were mostly atheists or pantheists (which is pretty much the
same thing). They might have drawn on Christian, Greek, Islamic and
other mythologies, but their message was always one of humanism.
I think the King of Brobdingnag refuted Humanism once and for all.

"I cannot but conclude the bulk of your natives to be the most
pernicious race of little odious vermin that Nature ever suffered to
crawl upon the surface of the earth."

<...>
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
Michael Pendragon
2019-09-20 03:55:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 15 Sep 2019 21:02:56 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:47:46 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 1 Sep 2019 12:01:17 -0700
<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Right. Like Milton isn't admired.
He isn't admired in our universities as Poe, Blake and Dickinson
are. He isn't taught in our schools as they are. As long ago as
the 1970s, I learned about Milton from my Latin teacher, not from
my English teacher, and I read him at home, not at school. In
English classes, Poe, Blake and Dickinson, along with others who
were even worse, resembled the Bad Breath in holding illimitable
dominion over all.
Both my high school and college English lit. courses included
selections from "Paradise Lost." I really don't see how one could
overlook Milton when presenting an overview of English lit.
I can't see any sense in it either, but it's what's been happening in
British schools since at least the 1970s. I hear rumours that it's
been happening in American schools too.
I'd ask my children if they'd studied it, but I doubt would much of a shot at turning up in the curriculum of a Hebrew school.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
IIRC,
the basic textbooks ran as follows: Anonymous ballads ("Gae Up an'
Bar the Door," "Barbara Allen," etc.), "Beowulf," "The Canterbury
Tales," Elizabethan (Donne, Marlowe, Shakespeare), "Paradise Lost,"
Pope and the Enlightenment, Pepys, The Romantics (Blake, Byron,
Shelley, Keats), Wordsworth, Coleridge, Poe, Dickens, Twain,
Emerson, Thoreau, Crane, Melville, Dickinson, Whitman.
I was taught Shakespeare, though I was taught in a way that almost
destroyed my potential enthusiasm. (I still find him more difficult to
enjoy than Racine, Goethe or the Greeks.)
We read "Romeo & Juliet," "Julius Caesar" and "MacBeth" in high school. The first two didn't do much for me at the time, but "MacBeth" really fired my imagination. I memorized the Weird Sisters' speeches and MacBeth's great soliloquy, "Tomorrow, tomorrow and tomorrow..."

Several years after graduating high school, a girlfriend bought me the collected plays of W.S., and I read about 2/3s of them -- mostly the tragedies and comedies (as opposed to the histories). I'm a big fan of "MacBeth," "Hamlet" and, especially, "A Midsummer Night's Dream."
Post by Peter J Ross
Otherwise, I wasn't taught any writer earlier than ~The Romantics~ in
English Literature classes.
I thought you'd had the best education money could buy. What happened? We read extended passages from "Beowulf," "Canterbury Tales" and "Paradise Lost" in 9th grade.

And since we're practically the same age, we obviously went to high school at the same time -- at most, I graduated a year before you (1982).
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Modern English literature is a separate course.
Is there such a thing as modern English literature? Very nearly all of
it seems to me to be modern English garbage.
I agree that it's a misnomer, but they do offer college courses in it. I took electives in "Science Fiction" and "World Lit 1750-Present" (or something to that effect).
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
I was told to read Milton, Pope, Homer, and other favorites of
yours as well. And I have read them (albeit some more thoroughly
than others).
If you were given such advice, you went to a better school than mine.
Perhaps you've simply forgotten the curriculum. Milton was always
treated as a towering figure in English literature; and I really
can't imagine an English lit class not including him.
No. I read Milton in secret, when I was expected to be reading Norman
MacCaig and Thom Gunn.
I read Milton in my early 20s when I'd realized that I was an ignoramus and decided to study world history and world literature on my own.

I've never heard of Norman MacCaig or Thom Gunn. There's a possibility that they appeared in one of the Norton Anthologies I've read, but if so, I've no recollection of them. I certainly wasn't taught anything about them in school.

After googling their names, I doubt that I'll ever read anything by them.
Post by Peter J Ross
I don't dislike the writings of MacCaig and Gunn, but they're designed
to be read and understood by anybody who can read and understand
anything. Where did the idea come from that such writings need to be
taught?
From T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, e e cummings and that bunch.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
The authors that I like are the ones who appeal to my Romantic
side: those who pit their protagonists in battles against God
(Manfred, Prometheus, Ahab, Wolf Larsen) -- which I see as the
essence of the human condition (that is, for those of us with the
sense to see it for what it is).
If you see the human condition for what it is, why can't you (and
all those silly old poets) accept it as a fact instead of whining
about it?
Which ones whined about it? They were rebels -- denying God, Satan,
Fate, TPTB, whatever any power over their destiny.
They lost. Then they whined. In the case of Prometheus, he whined all
the way through a whole play that used to be attributed to Aeschylus
but is now thought to be the work of a less intelligent dramatist.
I'm afraid I'm out the loop, academically. The version I read was still attributed to Aeschylus.

Anyway that was in Greek Antiquity. By the time Shelley and Byron got to him, he'd grown a pair of balls (or else the eagle stopped eating them and they regenerated).
Post by Peter J Ross
To repeat what I've told you before: The hero of /Paradise Lost/ is
Adam, not Satan; Byron's masterpiece is the story of Don Juan, not the
story of Manfred; the hero of /Moby Dick/ is "Ishmael", not Ahab.
Adam? Adam's totally passive throughout. Satan, otoh, is one of the great literary anti-heroes. A lot of people share your view of "Don Juan," but it can't even begin to touch "Manfred," "Cain" and "Heaven and Earth." I'd even place it behind his Arabesques. And Ishmael? He's even more passive than Adam. He's basically an onlooker who exists only to tell Ahab's tale.
Post by Peter J Ross
It's a part of growing up to learn that glamorous villains aren't
heroes.
How is Ahab a villain? Or Manfred? And Satan is only a villain because he refused to accept Jesus as God's equal/his better. And I've always read Moby Dick as the villain of the book that bears his name. He's a personification of pure evil in both Nature and in God (see the chapter on "The Whiteness of the Whale). Ahab, like Lucifer, is fighting against an unjust God. Manfred takes on both God and Satan while on his deathbed -- and places himself beyond the authority of both.

All three works are about man (and/or fallen angel) pitting himself against the powers that be regardless of the consequences.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
The difference between your favourite poets and mine is that mine
are realists, yours mere fantasists.
Mine were mostly atheists or pantheists (which is pretty much the
same thing). They might have drawn on Christian, Greek, Islamic and
other mythologies, but their message was always one of humanism.
I think the King of Brobdingnag refuted Humanism once and for all.
"I cannot but conclude the bulk of your natives to be the most
pernicious race of little odious vermin that Nature ever suffered to
crawl upon the surface of the earth."
He was a freakin' horse. Of course he's going to be prejudiced. We've subjected horses to servitude at the plow and wagon since time immemorial.
Peter J Ross
2019-09-23 18:29:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Thu, 19 Sep 2019 20:55:39 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 15 Sep 2019 21:02:56 -0700
<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
IIRC, the basic textbooks ran as follows: Anonymous ballads ("Gae
Up an' Bar the Door," "Barbara Allen," etc.), "Beowulf," "The
Canterbury Tales," Elizabethan (Donne, Marlowe, Shakespeare),
"Paradise Lost," Pope and the Enlightenment, Pepys, The Romantics
(Blake, Byron, Shelley, Keats), Wordsworth, Coleridge, Poe,
Dickens, Twain, Emerson, Thoreau, Crane, Melville, Dickinson,
Whitman.
I was taught Shakespeare, though I was taught in a way that almost
destroyed my potential enthusiasm. (I still find him more difficult
to enjoy than Racine, Goethe or the Greeks.)
We read "Romeo & Juliet," "Julius Caesar" and "MacBeth" in high
school. The first two didn't do much for me at the time, but
"MacBeth" really fired my imagination. I memorized the Weird
Sisters' speeches and MacBeth's great soliloquy, "Tomorrow, tomorrow
and tomorrow..."
At school I read those three and also The Merchant of Venice, Hamlet
and Twelfth Night. Julius Caesar and The Merchant were my favourites,
and even today I can probably recite from memory more lines from them
than from any other English play.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Several years after graduating high school, a girlfriend bought me
the collected plays of W.S., and I read about 2/3s of them -- mostly
the tragedies and comedies (as opposed to the histories). I'm a big
fan of "MacBeth," "Hamlet" and, especially, "A Midsummer Night's
Dream."
My favourites are mostly the history plays. The trilogy of Richard II
and the two parts of Henry IV are probably the plays I most admire,
though I still have more fun rereading Faust, Iphigenie auf Tauris,
Andromache and Iphigénie than anything in English.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Otherwise, I wasn't taught any writer earlier than ~The Romantics~
in English Literature classes.
I thought you'd had the best education money could buy. What
happened? We read extended passages from "Beowulf," "Canterbury
Tales" and "Paradise Lost" in 9th grade.
And since we're practically the same age, we obviously went to high
school at the same time -- at most, I graduated a year before you
(1982).
I had almost the best education I can imagine in Latin, French and
Mathematics. I had a decent education in Greek, German, Hebrew and
Physics. The deficiencies in my knowledge of many other subjects are
mostly my own fault, but the deficiencies in my knowledge of English
literature are my teachers' fault, and my understanding of the English
language (comprehensive and systematic though it may seem) is almost
entirely self-taught, and thus shakier than I'd like it to be.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Modern English literature is a separate course.
Is there such a thing as modern English literature? Very nearly all
of it seems to me to be modern English garbage.
I agree that it's a misnomer, but they do offer college courses in
it. I took electives in "Science Fiction" and "World Lit
1750-Present" (or something to that effect).
I'm inclined to think that such courses lack educational value. You
pass exams by reading stuff that you'd probably read without prompting.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
I was told to read Milton, Pope, Homer, and other favorites of
yours as well. And I have read them (albeit some more
thoroughly than others).
If you were given such advice, you went to a better school than mine.
Perhaps you've simply forgotten the curriculum. Milton was
always treated as a towering figure in English literature; and I
really can't imagine an English lit class not including him.
No. I read Milton in secret, when I was expected to be reading
Norman MacCaig and Thom Gunn.
I read Milton in my early 20s when I'd realized that I was an
ignoramus and decided to study world history and world literature on
my own.
We're all ignoramuses. Some of us are superior to Dreckery and Dunce,
but we're still inferior to Coleridge and Goethe.
Post by Michael Pendragon
I've never heard of Norman MacCaig or Thom Gunn. There's a
possibility that they appeared in one of the Norton Anthologies I've
read, but if so, I've no recollection of them. I certainly wasn't
taught anything about them in school.
After googling their names, I doubt that I'll ever read anything by them.
Thom Gunn is historically interesting as one of the "Movement" poets,
but I'd rate him much lower than Kingsley Amis, Philip Larkin,
Elizabeth Jennings, Robert Conquest and D J Enright, all of whom you
ought to read. (I confidently predict that you'll like Jennings best
and Enright least.)

MacCaig is superior to Dreckery and Dunce, but who isn't?
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
I don't dislike the writings of MacCaig and Gunn, but they're
designed to be read and understood by anybody who can read and
understand anything. Where did the idea come from that such
writings need to be taught?
From T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, e e cummings and that bunch.
No, the High Modernists recommended the study of great poetry of the
past, and they mostly agreed with me that the greatest poetry of the
past wasn't written in English.

One of my shameful defects is that I can't read many of the poems
that Eliot and Pound most admired in the original languages.

But here's a recent publication that might help me:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1107459060/

<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
The difference between your favourite poets and mine is that
mine are realists, yours mere fantasists.
Mine were mostly atheists or pantheists (which is pretty much the
same thing). They might have drawn on Christian, Greek, Islamic
and other mythologies, but their message was always one of
humanism.
I think the King of Brobdingnag refuted Humanism once and for all.
"I cannot but conclude the bulk of your natives to be the most
pernicious race of little odious vermin that Nature ever suffered
to crawl upon the surface of the earth."
He was a freakin' horse.
No, he wasn't. He was a giant. Please read the greatest prose satire
ever written.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Of course he's going to be prejudiced.
We've subjected horses to servitude at the plow and wagon since time
immemorial.
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
Michael Pendragon
2019-09-23 20:51:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Thu, 19 Sep 2019 20:55:39 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 15 Sep 2019 21:02:56 -0700
<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
IIRC, the basic textbooks ran as follows: Anonymous ballads ("Gae
Up an' Bar the Door," "Barbara Allen," etc.), "Beowulf," "The
Canterbury Tales," Elizabethan (Donne, Marlowe, Shakespeare),
"Paradise Lost," Pope and the Enlightenment, Pepys, The Romantics
(Blake, Byron, Shelley, Keats), Wordsworth, Coleridge, Poe,
Dickens, Twain, Emerson, Thoreau, Crane, Melville, Dickinson,
Whitman.
I was taught Shakespeare, though I was taught in a way that almost
destroyed my potential enthusiasm. (I still find him more difficult
to enjoy than Racine, Goethe or the Greeks.)
We read "Romeo & Juliet," "Julius Caesar" and "MacBeth" in high
school. The first two didn't do much for me at the time, but
"MacBeth" really fired my imagination. I memorized the Weird
Sisters' speeches and MacBeth's great soliloquy, "Tomorrow, tomorrow
and tomorrow..."
At school I read those three and also The Merchant of Venice, Hamlet
and Twelfth Night. Julius Caesar and The Merchant were my favourites,
and even today I can probably recite from memory more lines from them
than from any other English play.
In that case, they couldn't have destroyed all of your potential enthusiasm for the Bard.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Several years after graduating high school, a girlfriend bought me
the collected plays of W.S., and I read about 2/3s of them -- mostly
the tragedies and comedies (as opposed to the histories). I'm a big
fan of "MacBeth," "Hamlet" and, especially, "A Midsummer Night's
Dream."
My favourites are mostly the history plays. The trilogy of Richard II
and the two parts of Henry IV are probably the plays I most admire,
though I still have more fun rereading Faust, Iphigenie auf Tauris,
Andromache and Iphigénie than anything in English.
My impression has always been that if you were to rank your favorite languages, English would be fairly low on the list.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Otherwise, I wasn't taught any writer earlier than ~The Romantics~
in English Literature classes.
I thought you'd had the best education money could buy. What
happened? We read extended passages from "Beowulf," "Canterbury
Tales" and "Paradise Lost" in 9th grade.
And since we're practically the same age, we obviously went to high
school at the same time -- at most, I graduated a year before you
(1982).
I had almost the best education I can imagine in Latin, French and
Mathematics. I had a decent education in Greek, German, Hebrew and
Physics. The deficiencies in my knowledge of many other subjects are
mostly my own fault, but the deficiencies in my knowledge of English
literature are my teachers' fault, and my understanding of the English
language (comprehensive and systematic though it may seem) is almost
entirely self-taught, and thus shakier than I'd like it to be.
I consider myself largely self-taught in both English literature and language, as well; although insofar as high school goes, it was entirely my own fault. I had no interest in high school, cut classes regularly, never bothered myself with homework, and had no plans to pursue a college education... or to become another cog in the 9-to-5 working world.

Up until my senior year, I was caught up in Romantic notion of heeding the "Song of the Open Road." My plans were to pack up my guitar, my metal detector, my KA-BAR USMC fighting knife and a notebook for writing poetry and hop a series of freight trains out to California where I could pan for gold, seek the Lost Dutchman's Mine, where I planned to enjoy numerous adventures that could later serve as the basis for a series of exciting adventure novels.

Eventually common sense prevailed. I realized that I'd end up smelling like... well, Stinky George; and losing all my teeth like... Stinky George; and probably getting beaten, robbed and raped by other vagabonds like... Stinky George; and possibly even getting killed. So I enlisted in the Navy instead, like Stinky George.

Afterwards, I gave myself a graduate level education in World Literature, English Composition, History, Philosophy, Psychology and Cinema Studies (History, Theory and Criticism) and Production. I must, however, confess that I failed to even so much as open a Math or Science book (unless one counts Lucretious).

Fortunately, once I finally enrolled in college (at the age of 24), I found that I only needed to take one Algebra course; and my roommate just happened to be a math major, who worked in the math department and who was happy to do my homework in return for beer and was able to provide me with photocopies of the math tests in advance. As for Science, I took Environmental Science I and II which, even as part of the Honors program curriculum, was relatively easy (compared to biology or chemistry).

In short, college was a breeze. And, as an added benefit, I had plenty of time to indulge in such extracurricular activities as editing the school art & literary magazine, chasing girls, getting drunk, chasing girls, experimenting with mind-expanding substances, chasing girls, etc.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Modern English literature is a separate course.
Is there such a thing as modern English literature? Very nearly all
of it seems to me to be modern English garbage.
I agree that it's a misnomer, but they do offer college courses in
it. I took electives in "Science Fiction" and "World Lit
1750-Present" (or something to that effect).
I'm inclined to think that such courses lack educational value. You
pass exams by reading stuff that you'd probably read without prompting.
Until that time, I'd been reading the canon of "Great Literature" (Homer, Virgil, Plato, Aristotle, Sophocles, Dante, Boccaccio, Chaucer, Bunyan, Milton, et al.) and my only experience with Science Fiction was through the writings of Edgar Poe and Jules Verne.

I was similarly new to the works in the modernish world lit course as well (Racine, Flaubert, Joyce and such), so both ended up being very educational.

That is, I intentionally selected lit courses featuring writings that I was unfamiliar with. I also took electives that challenged me in some way (music appreciation, acting, French, Existentialism, photography). Apart from being profoundly mathematically impaired, I consider myself quite the Renaissance man.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
I was told to read Milton, Pope, Homer, and other favorites of
yours as well. And I have read them (albeit some more
thoroughly than others).
If you were given such advice, you went to a better school than mine.
Perhaps you've simply forgotten the curriculum. Milton was
always treated as a towering figure in English literature; and I
really can't imagine an English lit class not including him.
No. I read Milton in secret, when I was expected to be reading
Norman MacCaig and Thom Gunn.
I read Milton in my early 20s when I'd realized that I was an
ignoramus and decided to study world history and world literature on
my own.
We're all ignoramuses. Some of us are superior to Dreckery and Dunce,
but we're still inferior to Coleridge and Goethe.
True. I've always looked on life as a continuing learning experience.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
I've never heard of Norman MacCaig or Thom Gunn. There's a
possibility that they appeared in one of the Norton Anthologies I've
read, but if so, I've no recollection of them. I certainly wasn't
taught anything about them in school.
After googling their names, I doubt that I'll ever read anything by them.
Thom Gunn is historically interesting as one of the "Movement" poets,
but I'd rate him much lower than Kingsley Amis, Philip Larkin,
Elizabeth Jennings, Robert Conquest and D J Enright, all of whom you
ought to read. (I confidently predict that you'll like Jennings best
and Enright least.)
I'll try to check some sample out online. Moderns... (shudder).
Post by Peter J Ross
MacCaig is superior to Dreckery and Dunce, but who isn't?
Vinyl Cat.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
I don't dislike the writings of MacCaig and Gunn, but they're
designed to be read and understood by anybody who can read and
understand anything. Where did the idea come from that such
writings need to be taught?
From T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, e e cummings and that bunch.
No, the High Modernists recommended the study of great poetry of the
past, and they mostly agreed with me that the greatest poetry of the
past wasn't written in English.
One of my shameful defects is that I can't read many of the poems
that Eliot and Pound most admired in the original languages.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1107459060/
An admirable goal... I suppose.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
The difference between your favourite poets and mine is that
mine are realists, yours mere fantasists.
Mine were mostly atheists or pantheists (which is pretty much the
same thing). They might have drawn on Christian, Greek, Islamic
and other mythologies, but their message was always one of
humanism.
I think the King of Brobdingnag refuted Humanism once and for all.
"I cannot but conclude the bulk of your natives to be the most
pernicious race of little odious vermin that Nature ever suffered
to crawl upon the surface of the earth."
He was a freakin' horse.
No, he wasn't. He was a giant. Please read the greatest prose satire
ever written.
I did. I was mixing up the Brobdingagians with the Houyhnhnms. It's been a long time since I'd read it.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Of course he's going to be prejudiced.
We've subjected horses to servitude at the plow and wagon since time
immemorial.
--
PJR :-)
τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
Michael Pendragon
2019-09-24 03:54:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Thu, 19 Sep 2019 20:55:39 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 15 Sep 2019 21:02:56 -0700
<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
IIRC, the basic textbooks ran as follows: Anonymous ballads ("Gae
Up an' Bar the Door," "Barbara Allen," etc.), "Beowulf," "The
Canterbury Tales," Elizabethan (Donne, Marlowe, Shakespeare),
"Paradise Lost," Pope and the Enlightenment, Pepys, The Romantics
(Blake, Byron, Shelley, Keats), Wordsworth, Coleridge, Poe,
Dickens, Twain, Emerson, Thoreau, Crane, Melville, Dickinson,
Whitman.
I was taught Shakespeare, though I was taught in a way that almost
destroyed my potential enthusiasm. (I still find him more difficult
to enjoy than Racine, Goethe or the Greeks.)
We read "Romeo & Juliet," "Julius Caesar" and "MacBeth" in high
school. The first two didn't do much for me at the time, but
"MacBeth" really fired my imagination. I memorized the Weird
Sisters' speeches and MacBeth's great soliloquy, "Tomorrow, tomorrow
and tomorrow..."
At school I read those three and also The Merchant of Venice, Hamlet
and Twelfth Night. Julius Caesar and The Merchant were my favourites,
and even today I can probably recite from memory more lines from them
than from any other English play.
In that case, they couldn't have destroyed all of your potential enthusiasm for the Bard.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Several years after graduating high school, a girlfriend bought me
the collected plays of W.S., and I read about 2/3s of them -- mostly
the tragedies and comedies (as opposed to the histories). I'm a big
fan of "MacBeth," "Hamlet" and, especially, "A Midsummer Night's
Dream."
My favourites are mostly the history plays. The trilogy of Richard II
and the two parts of Henry IV are probably the plays I most admire,
though I still have more fun rereading Faust, Iphigenie auf Tauris,
Andromache and Iphigénie than anything in English.
My impression has always been that if you were to rank your favorite languages, English would be fairly low on the list.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Otherwise, I wasn't taught any writer earlier than ~The Romantics~
in English Literature classes.
I thought you'd had the best education money could buy. What
happened? We read extended passages from "Beowulf," "Canterbury
Tales" and "Paradise Lost" in 9th grade.
And since we're practically the same age, we obviously went to high
school at the same time -- at most, I graduated a year before you
(1982).
I had almost the best education I can imagine in Latin, French and
Mathematics. I had a decent education in Greek, German, Hebrew and
Physics. The deficiencies in my knowledge of many other subjects are
mostly my own fault, but the deficiencies in my knowledge of English
literature are my teachers' fault, and my understanding of the English
language (comprehensive and systematic though it may seem) is almost
entirely self-taught, and thus shakier than I'd like it to be.
I consider myself largely self-taught in both English literature and language, as well; although insofar as high school goes, it was entirely my own fault. I had no interest in high school, cut classes regularly, never bothered myself with homework, and had no plans to pursue a college education... or to become another cog in the 9-to-5 working world.
Up until my senior year, I was caught up in Romantic notion of heeding the "Song of the Open Road." My plans were to pack up my guitar, my metal detector, my KA-BAR USMC fighting knife and a notebook for writing poetry and hop a series of freight trains out to California where I could pan for gold, seek the Lost Dutchman's Mine, where I planned to enjoy numerous adventures that could later serve as the basis for a series of exciting adventure novels.
Eventually common sense prevailed. I realized that I'd end up smelling like... well, Stinky George; and losing all my teeth like... Stinky George; and probably getting beaten, robbed and raped by other vagabonds like... Stinky George; and possibly even getting killed. So I enlisted in the Navy instead, like Stinky George.
Afterwards, I gave myself a graduate level education in World Literature, English Composition, History, Philosophy, Psychology and Cinema Studies (History, Theory and Criticism) and Production. I must, however, confess that I failed to even so much as open a Math or Science book (unless one counts Lucretious).
Fortunately, once I finally enrolled in college (at the age of 24), I found that I only needed to take one Algebra course; and my roommate just happened to be a math major, who worked in the math department and who was happy to do my homework in return for beer and was able to provide me with photocopies of the math tests in advance. As for Science, I took Environmental Science I and II which, even as part of the Honors program curriculum, was relatively easy (compared to biology or chemistry).
In short, college was a breeze. And, as an added benefit, I had plenty of time to indulge in such extracurricular activities as editing the school art & literary magazine, chasing girls, getting drunk, chasing girls, experimenting with mind-expanding substances, chasing girls, etc.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Modern English literature is a separate course.
Is there such a thing as modern English literature? Very nearly all
of it seems to me to be modern English garbage.
I agree that it's a misnomer, but they do offer college courses in
it. I took electives in "Science Fiction" and "World Lit
1750-Present" (or something to that effect).
I'm inclined to think that such courses lack educational value. You
pass exams by reading stuff that you'd probably read without prompting.
Until that time, I'd been reading the canon of "Great Literature" (Homer, Virgil, Plato, Aristotle, Sophocles, Dante, Boccaccio, Chaucer, Bunyan, Milton, et al.) and my only experience with Science Fiction was through the writings of Edgar Poe and Jules Verne.
I was similarly new to the works in the modernish world lit course as well (Racine, Flaubert, Joyce and such), so both ended up being very educational.
That is, I intentionally selected lit courses featuring writings that I was unfamiliar with. I also took electives that challenged me in some way (music appreciation, acting, French, Existentialism, photography). Apart from being profoundly mathematically impaired, I consider myself quite the Renaissance man.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
I was told to read Milton, Pope, Homer, and other favorites of
yours as well. And I have read them (albeit some more
thoroughly than others).
If you were given such advice, you went to a better school than mine.
Perhaps you've simply forgotten the curriculum. Milton was
always treated as a towering figure in English literature; and I
really can't imagine an English lit class not including him.
No. I read Milton in secret, when I was expected to be reading
Norman MacCaig and Thom Gunn.
I read Milton in my early 20s when I'd realized that I was an
ignoramus and decided to study world history and world literature on
my own.
We're all ignoramuses. Some of us are superior to Dreckery and Dunce,
but we're still inferior to Coleridge and Goethe.
True. I've always looked on life as a continuing learning experience.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
I've never heard of Norman MacCaig or Thom Gunn. There's a
possibility that they appeared in one of the Norton Anthologies I've
read, but if so, I've no recollection of them. I certainly wasn't
taught anything about them in school.
After googling their names, I doubt that I'll ever read anything by them.
Thom Gunn is historically interesting as one of the "Movement" poets,
but I'd rate him much lower than Kingsley Amis, Philip Larkin,
Elizabeth Jennings, Robert Conquest and D J Enright, all of whom you
ought to read. (I confidently predict that you'll like Jennings best
and Enright least.)
I'll try to check some sample out online. Moderns... (shudder).
Post by Peter J Ross
MacCaig is superior to Dreckery and Dunce, but who isn't?
Vinyl Cat.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
I don't dislike the writings of MacCaig and Gunn, but they're
designed to be read and understood by anybody who can read and
understand anything. Where did the idea come from that such
writings need to be taught?
From T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, e e cummings and that bunch.
No, the High Modernists recommended the study of great poetry of the
past, and they mostly agreed with me that the greatest poetry of the
past wasn't written in English.
One of my shameful defects is that I can't read many of the poems
that Eliot and Pound most admired in the original languages.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1107459060/
An admirable goal... I suppose.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
The difference between your favourite poets and mine is that
mine are realists, yours mere fantasists.
Mine were mostly atheists or pantheists (which is pretty much the
same thing). They might have drawn on Christian, Greek, Islamic
and other mythologies, but their message was always one of
humanism.
I think the King of Brobdingnag refuted Humanism once and for all.
"I cannot but conclude the bulk of your natives to be the most
pernicious race of little odious vermin that Nature ever suffered
to crawl upon the surface of the earth."
He was a freakin' horse.
No, he wasn't. He was a giant. Please read the greatest prose satire
ever written.
I did. I was mixing up the Brobdingagians with the Houyhnhnms. It's been a long time since I'd read it.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Of course he's going to be prejudiced.
We've subjected horses to servitude at the plow and wagon since time
immemorial.
I had to break the last post off short as the 5 o'clock whistle blew.

I'd just like to note that I didn't think much of "Gulliver's Travels." I didn't think much of the similar "Candide" either, but I prefer it over "Gulliver." I read Swift's story in a book called "Gulliver's Travels & other Works" (or something like that), and I've forgotten what all of the other works were -- with the exception of "Battle of the Books" (which also failed to impress me) and "A Modest Proposal" (which impressed me very much).
Peter J Ross
2019-09-29 17:04:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Mon, 23 Sep 2019 20:54:53 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
I think the King of Brobdingnag refuted Humanism once and for all.
"I cannot but conclude the bulk of your natives to be the most
pernicious race of little odious vermin that Nature ever
suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth."
He was a freakin' horse.
No, he wasn't. He was a giant. Please read the greatest prose
satire ever written.
I did. I was mixing up the Brobdingagians with the Houyhnhnms.
It's been a long time since I'd read it.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Of course he's going to be prejudiced. We've subjected horses
to servitude at the plow and wagon since time immemorial.
I had to break the last post off short as the 5 o'clock whistle blew.

Post by Michael Pendragon
I'd just like to note that I didn't think much of "Gulliver's
Travels." I didn't think much of the similar "Candide" either, but
I prefer it over "Gulliver." I read Swift's story in a book called
"Gulliver's Travels & other Works" (or something like that), and
I've forgotten what all of the other works were -- with the
exception of "Battle of the Books" (which also failed to impress me)
and "A Modest Proposal" (which impressed me very much).
How can anybody not enjoy Swift and Voltaire? Even if you don't agree
with them (and I don't often agree with Voltaire), don't they tell
wonderful stories? Don't they write powerful poetry in magnificent
verse? Aren't they both people you'd be delighted to converse with?

Even Edward Gibbon (of all human beings the least likely to be
star-struck) was moderately impressed by Voltaire, and Swift was a
hero to everybody who knew him.

Aren't they both people whose admirable personalities are revealed in
their writings?

(But of course you haven't read Voltaire: he didn't write in English.
And Swift didn't write the sloppy variety of English that you like.
And your principal literary GOD is a pathetic drunkard.)
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
Michael Pendragon
2019-09-29 22:09:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Mon, 23 Sep 2019 20:54:53 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
I think the King of Brobdingnag refuted Humanism once and for all.
"I cannot but conclude the bulk of your natives to be the most
pernicious race of little odious vermin that Nature ever
suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth."
He was a freakin' horse.
No, he wasn't. He was a giant. Please read the greatest prose
satire ever written.
I did. I was mixing up the Brobdingagians with the Houyhnhnms.
It's been a long time since I'd read it.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Of course he's going to be prejudiced. We've subjected horses
to servitude at the plow and wagon since time immemorial.
I had to break the last post off short as the 5 o'clock whistle blew.
http://youtu.be/4hXJamFm8fY
Post by Michael Pendragon
I'd just like to note that I didn't think much of "Gulliver's
Travels." I didn't think much of the similar "Candide" either, but
I prefer it over "Gulliver." I read Swift's story in a book called
"Gulliver's Travels & other Works" (or something like that), and
I've forgotten what all of the other works were -- with the
exception of "Battle of the Books" (which also failed to impress me)
and "A Modest Proposal" (which impressed me very much).
How can anybody not enjoy Swift and Voltaire? Even if you don't agree
with them (and I don't often agree with Voltaire), don't they tell
wonderful stories? Don't they write powerful poetry in magnificent
verse? Aren't they both people you'd be delighted to converse with?
"Gulliver's Travels" and "Candide" were imaginative... but the satire wore thin awfully fast, and there was nothing in the writing (stylistically) to capture my interest. Nor could I identify with Candide (the man was a total idiot) or Gulliver, who was more of a witness than a protagonist (he was merely a means be which to introduce the various fantastic kingdoms).

As to conversing with them, I'm sure I'd enjoy Swift's company, but Voltaire and I might have some difficulties getting past his anti-semitism.
Post by Peter J Ross
Even Edward Gibbon (of all human beings the least likely to be
star-struck) was moderately impressed by Voltaire, and Swift was a
hero to everybody who knew him.
Aren't they both people whose admirable personalities are revealed in
their writings?
Swift, yes. Voltaire, otoh, comes across as a snooty little putz.
Post by Peter J Ross
(But of course you haven't read Voltaire: he didn't write in English.
And Swift didn't write the sloppy variety of English that you like.
And your principal literary GOD is a pathetic drunkard.)
From what I've read about him (and I've read just about everything I could), he had an extremely low tolerance for alcohol and would become extremely intoxicated on one or two glasses. Unfortunately, it was considered poor manners to refuse a drink from a host, so he was sometimes compelled to drink socially.

But what does that matter? Drunk or sober, the man composed "Israfel," "The Conqueror Worm" and "Alone."
Peter J Ross
2019-10-05 19:52:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 29 Sep 2019 15:09:30 -0700 (PDT),
<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
How can anybody not enjoy Swift and Voltaire? Even if you don't
agree with them (and I don't often agree with Voltaire), don't they
tell wonderful stories? Don't they write powerful poetry in
magnificent verse? Aren't they both people you'd be delighted to
converse with?
"Gulliver's Travels" and "Candide" were imaginative... but the
satire wore thin awfully fast, and there was nothing in the writing
(stylistically) to capture my interest. Nor could I identify with
Candide (the man was a total idiot) or Gulliver, who was more of a
witness than a protagonist (he was merely a means be which to
introduce the various fantastic kingdoms).
It seems that you haven't read the excellent poems of Swift or the
excellent verse dramas of Voltaire.

As for your lack of interest in Gulliver and Candide as characters,
neither of them is intended to be a rival to Hamlet or Faust. They're
just ordinary blokes to whom extraordinary things happen. They're the
distant ancestors of the "heroes" of the novels of Evelyn Waugh or
Stephen King.
Post by Michael Pendragon
As to conversing with them, I'm sure I'd enjoy Swift's company, but
Voltaire and I might have some difficulties getting past his
anti-semitism.
I don't remember noticing anti-Jewish sentiments in Voltaire's plays
and stories. But he lived in a time when everybody who wasn't Jewish
was at least slightly anti-Jewish, and would probably have different
opinions if he were resurrected to have dinner with us today.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Even Edward Gibbon (of all human beings the least likely to be
star-struck) was moderately impressed by Voltaire, and Swift was a
hero to everybody who knew him.
Aren't they both people whose admirable personalities are revealed
in their writings?
Swift, yes. Voltaire, otoh, comes across as a snooty little putz.
Would you prefer my second favourite of the French philosophical
writers, D A F de Sade?
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
(But of course you haven't read Voltaire: he didn't write in
English. And Swift didn't write the sloppy variety of English that
you like. And your principal literary GOD is a pathetic drunkard.)
From what I've read about him (and I've read just about everything I
could), he had an extremely low tolerance for alcohol and would
become extremely intoxicated on one or two glasses. Unfortunately,
it was considered poor manners to refuse a drink from a host, so he
was sometimes compelled to drink socially.
Drunkards always have an excuse. "Dear teenage wife, I intended to
avoid getting falling-down drunk, but it was a social necessity.
Apologies for vomiting on your crinoline. It was society's fault, not
mine."
Post by Michael Pendragon
But what does that matter? Drunk or sober, the man composed
"Israfel," "The Conqueror Worm" and "Alone."
He was probably sober when he wrote his poems and stories. That
doesn't make them good.
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
Michael Pendragon
2019-10-06 04:50:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 29 Sep 2019 15:09:30 -0700 (PDT),
<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
How can anybody not enjoy Swift and Voltaire? Even if you don't
agree with them (and I don't often agree with Voltaire), don't they
tell wonderful stories? Don't they write powerful poetry in
magnificent verse? Aren't they both people you'd be delighted to
converse with?
"Gulliver's Travels" and "Candide" were imaginative... but the
satire wore thin awfully fast, and there was nothing in the writing
(stylistically) to capture my interest. Nor could I identify with
Candide (the man was a total idiot) or Gulliver, who was more of a
witness than a protagonist (he was merely a means be which to
introduce the various fantastic kingdoms).
It seems that you haven't read the excellent poems of Swift
I'm pretty sure I have. I don't recall which ones, or anything about them, but I'm pretty sure that I've come across a few examples in poetry collections.
Post by Peter J Ross
or the
excellent verse dramas of Voltaire.
Unfortunately, my understanding of French is insufficient for reading french literary classics. Voltaire's skills at versification would largely be lost on me.
Post by Peter J Ross
As for your lack of interest in Gulliver and Candide as characters,
neither of them is intended to be a rival to Hamlet or Faust. They're
just ordinary blokes to whom extraordinary things happen. They're the
distant ancestors of the "heroes" of the novels of Evelyn Waugh or
Stephen King.
My problem with them isn't that they're everyman figures; it's that they're entirely passive. Extraordinary things happen *to* them. They neither initiate, react to, or take action for or against anything. They aren't protagonists in that they don't really strive to overcome any obstacles, experience personal growth, etc. And, even worse, they lack any defining personality traits... in fact, they have no personality at all. Candide is a one-dimensional caricature of a Liebnitz devotee. That's it. Gulliver, otoh, lacks even a single dimension. He is merely a stand in for the reader and provides a reason for Swift's characters to explain themselves, their worlds, and their philosophies to.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
As to conversing with them, I'm sure I'd enjoy Swift's company, but
Voltaire and I might have some difficulties getting past his
anti-semitism.
I don't remember noticing anti-Jewish sentiments in Voltaire's plays
and stories. But he lived in a time when everybody who wasn't Jewish
was at least slightly anti-Jewish, and would probably have different
opinions if he were resurrected to have dinner with us today.
His "Dictionnaire Philosophique" contained several anti-semitic passages: he basically called the Jewish people the most ignorant, barbaric race on the planet (or something to that effect).
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Even Edward Gibbon (of all human beings the least likely to be
star-struck) was moderately impressed by Voltaire, and Swift was a
hero to everybody who knew him.
Aren't they both people whose admirable personalities are revealed
in their writings?
Swift, yes. Voltaire, otoh, comes across as a snooty little putz.
Would you prefer my second favourite of the French philosophical
writers, D A F de Sade?
I might... but I haven't read him.

I did leaf through a book by him about 20 years ago, but didn't think it looked interesting enough to purchase.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
(But of course you haven't read Voltaire: he didn't write in
English. And Swift didn't write the sloppy variety of English that
you like. And your principal literary GOD is a pathetic drunkard.)
From what I've read about him (and I've read just about everything I
could), he had an extremely low tolerance for alcohol and would
become extremely intoxicated on one or two glasses. Unfortunately,
it was considered poor manners to refuse a drink from a host, so he
was sometimes compelled to drink socially.
Drunkards always have an excuse. "Dear teenage wife, I intended to
avoid getting falling-down drunk, but it was a social necessity.
Apologies for vomiting on your crinoline. It was society's fault, not
mine."
That's true. The question is whether we believe that he could get extremely drunk on a glass or two of wine.

I believe him, as I have similar reactions to marijuana. One hit of a joint can set me off on a series of intensive hallucinations lasting several hours and generally making me violently ill.

I also had a friend in college who was a diagnosed schizophrenic (actually I've had several diagnosed crazy friends and a diagnosed crazy girlfriend over the years -- I believe it's my eccentricity that attracts nutters) who could get ridiculously drunk off of a couple of swigs of beer. Otoh, he'd also get drunk off of fruit juice. Once when we were hanging out at the Caliente Cab, the bartender flagged him from drinking grapefruit juice (it was in reaction to the sugar).

Now far be it from me to say that Poe was schizophrenic (although some have theorized this), but people do experience extreme reactions to alcohol and drugs, and creative genius might well be especially so (the similarities between schizotypal thought patterns and genius are well known).
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
But what does that matter? Drunk or sober, the man composed
"Israfel," "The Conqueror Worm" and "Alone."
He was probably sober when he wrote his poems and stories. That
doesn't make them good.
His reputation has grown steadily in the years since his death, and he is arguably the most respected American author of all time. He is certainly an iconic figure -- as the Poe bobblehead and action figure on my desk testify. I also have a Poe t-shirt and a Poe sweatshirt and have seen Poe's face on women's purses, socks, undergarments and pajamas. One doesn't become a cultural icon 150+ years after their death by having been a lousy writer.
Peter J Ross
2019-10-10 18:43:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sat, 5 Oct 2019 21:50:48 -0700 (PDT),
On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 3:52:41 PM UTC-4, Peter J Ross
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 29 Sep 2019 15:09:30 -0700
<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
How can anybody not enjoy Swift and Voltaire? Even if you don't
agree with them (and I don't often agree with Voltaire), don't
they tell wonderful stories? Don't they write powerful poetry in
magnificent verse? Aren't they both people you'd be delighted to
converse with?
"Gulliver's Travels" and "Candide" were imaginative... but the
satire wore thin awfully fast, and there was nothing in the
writing (stylistically) to capture my interest. Nor could I
identify with Candide (the man was a total idiot) or Gulliver,
who was more of a witness than a protagonist (he was merely a
means be which to introduce the various fantastic kingdoms).
It seems that you haven't read the excellent poems of Swift
I'm pretty sure I have. I don't recall which ones, or anything
about them, but I'm pretty sure that I've come across a few examples
in poetry collections.
Not remembering them is equivalent to not having read them.
Post by Peter J Ross
or the excellent verse dramas of Voltaire.
Unfortunately, my understanding of French is insufficient for
reading french literary classics. Voltaire's skills at
versification would largely be lost on me.
So your literary theory depends on opinions about the merits of
authors you haven't read.
Post by Peter J Ross
As for your lack of interest in Gulliver and Candide as characters,
neither of them is intended to be a rival to Hamlet or Faust.
They're just ordinary blokes to whom extraordinary things happen.
They're the distant ancestors of the "heroes" of the novels of
Evelyn Waugh or Stephen King.
My problem with them isn't that they're everyman figures; it's that
they're entirely passive. Extraordinary things happen *to* them.
They neither initiate, react to, or take action for or against
anything. They aren't protagonists in that they don't really strive
to overcome any obstacles, experience personal growth, etc. And,
even worse, they lack any defining personality traits... in fact,
they have no personality at all. Candide is a one-dimensional
caricature of a Liebnitz devotee. That's it. Gulliver, otoh, lacks
even a single dimension. He is merely a stand in for the reader and
provides a reason for Swift's characters to explain themselves,
their worlds, and their philosophies to.
Why is that a problem for you?

In many, perhaps most, great stories, the narrator isn't the
protagonist. Is Jim the most active character in /Treasure Island/?
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
As to conversing with them, I'm sure I'd enjoy Swift's company,
but Voltaire and I might have some difficulties getting past his
anti-semitism.
I don't remember noticing anti-Jewish sentiments in Voltaire's
plays and stories. But he lived in a time when everybody who wasn't
Jewish was at least slightly anti-Jewish, and would probably have
different opinions if he were resurrected to have dinner with us
today.
His "Dictionnaire Philosophique" contained several anti-semitic
passages: he basically called the Jewish people the most ignorant,
barbaric race on the planet (or something to that effect).
So what? Even a great enlightener can't be expected to be enlightened
about everything.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Even Edward Gibbon (of all human beings the least likely to be
star-struck) was moderately impressed by Voltaire, and Swift was
a hero to everybody who knew him.
Aren't they both people whose admirable personalities are
revealed in their writings?
Swift, yes. Voltaire, otoh, comes across as a snooty little putz.
Would you prefer my second favourite of the French philosophical
writers, D A F de Sade?
I might... but I haven't read him.
I did leaf through a book by him about 20 years ago, but didn't
think it looked interesting enough to purchase.
/Les Infortunes de la Vertu/ is the book to read. It's short, not
very pornographic, and written in Golden Age French prose.

Even in translation, I'm sure that its character as an über-Candide
won't be entirely lost.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
(But of course you haven't read Voltaire: he didn't write in
English. And Swift didn't write the sloppy variety of English
that you like. And your principal literary GOD is a pathetic
drunkard.)
From what I've read about him (and I've read just about
everything I could), he had an extremely low tolerance for
alcohol and would become extremely intoxicated on one or two
glasses. Unfortunately, it was considered poor manners to refuse
a drink from a host, so he was sometimes compelled to drink
socially.
Drunkards always have an excuse. "Dear teenage wife, I intended to
avoid getting falling-down drunk, but it was a social necessity.
Apologies for vomiting on your crinoline. It was society's fault,
not mine."
That's true. The question is whether we believe that he could get
extremely drunk on a glass or two of wine.
I believe him, as I have similar reactions to marijuana. One hit of
a joint can set me off on a series of intensive hallucinations
lasting several hours and generally making me violently ill.
My physical reactions to the evil poison were less extreme than yours,
but I'm glad that I gave up destroying my brain after two or three
attempts.
I also had a friend in college who was a diagnosed schizophrenic
(actually I've had several diagnosed crazy friends and a diagnosed
crazy girlfriend over the years -- I believe it's my eccentricity
that attracts nutters) who could get ridiculously drunk off of a
couple of swigs of beer. Otoh, he'd also get drunk off of fruit
juice. Once when we were hanging out at the Caliente Cab, the
bartender flagged him from drinking grapefruit juice (it was in
reaction to the sugar).
You are Philip K Dick, and I claim my five pounds.
Now far be it from me to say that Poe was schizophrenic (although
some have theorized this), but people do experience extreme
reactions to alcohol and drugs, and creative genius might well be
especially so (the similarities between schizotypal thought patterns
and genius are well known).
Utter gibberish.

Poe wasn't a genius (despite your question-begging). He was a talented
hack at best. And his thirst for booze didn't help him.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
But what does that matter? Drunk or sober, the man composed
"Israfel," "The Conqueror Worm" and "Alone."
He was probably sober when he wrote his poems and stories. That
doesn't make them good.
His reputation has grown steadily in the years since his death, and
he is arguably the most respected American author of all time. He
is certainly an iconic figure -- as the Poe bobblehead and action
figure on my desk testify. I also have a Poe t-shirt and a Poe
sweatshirt and have seen Poe's face on women's purses, socks,
undergarments and pajamas. One doesn't become a cultural icon 150+
years after their death by having been a lousy writer.
And yet you're not a fan of such cultural icons as Emily Dickinson,
Jim Morrison or Kim Kardashian.

Why not? Why don't you have a bust of Kim Kardashian above your
chamber door? Her tweets and status updates may not be as tiresomely
metrical as Eddy Poe's, but I'm sure she could give Bliss Cartman a
run for his money.
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
Coco DeSockmonkey
2019-10-10 20:48:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sat, 5 Oct 2019 21:50:48 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 29 Sep 2019 15:09:30 -0700
<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
How can anybody not enjoy Swift and Voltaire? Even if you don't
agree with them (and I don't often agree with Voltaire), don't
they tell wonderful stories? Don't they write powerful poetry in
magnificent verse? Aren't they both people you'd be delighted to
converse with?
"Gulliver's Travels" and "Candide" were imaginative... but the
satire wore thin awfully fast, and there was nothing in the
writing (stylistically) to capture my interest. Nor could I
identify with Candide (the man was a total idiot) or Gulliver,
who was more of a witness than a protagonist (he was merely a
means be which to introduce the various fantastic kingdoms).
It seems that you haven't read the excellent poems of Swift
I'm pretty sure I have. I don't recall which ones, or anything
about them, but I'm pretty sure that I've come across a few examples
in poetry collections.
Not remembering them is equivalent to not having read them.
Not entirely. For example, I'd watched "Monte Carlo or Bust"/"Those Daring Young Men in their Jaunty Jalopies" when I was 10 or so and couldn't remember anything about it other than that it depicted an international race using antique autos, and that Tony Curtis' character said "H-E-double toothpicks" at some point in it. I recently rewatched it and began to remember much of the narrative very clearly as the movie progressed. I'd be thinking things like "I remember, Terry Thomas is going to switch everyone's shoes in front of their hotel doors now..."

IOW: The memory is still there -- it's just dormant until something recalls it to consciousness.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
or the excellent verse dramas of Voltaire.
Unfortunately, my understanding of French is insufficient for
reading french literary classics. Voltaire's skills at
versification would largely be lost on me.
So your literary theory depends on opinions about the merits of
authors you haven't read.
Where did you get that from?

I'm saying that the subtleties and complexities of a verse work would be lost on me, were it composed in any other but my native tongue.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
As for your lack of interest in Gulliver and Candide as characters,
neither of them is intended to be a rival to Hamlet or Faust.
They're just ordinary blokes to whom extraordinary things happen.
They're the distant ancestors of the "heroes" of the novels of
Evelyn Waugh or Stephen King.
My problem with them isn't that they're everyman figures; it's that
they're entirely passive. Extraordinary things happen *to* them.
They neither initiate, react to, or take action for or against
anything. They aren't protagonists in that they don't really strive
to overcome any obstacles, experience personal growth, etc. And,
even worse, they lack any defining personality traits... in fact,
they have no personality at all. Candide is a one-dimensional
caricature of a Liebnitz devotee. That's it. Gulliver, otoh, lacks
even a single dimension. He is merely a stand in for the reader and
provides a reason for Swift's characters to explain themselves,
their worlds, and their philosophies to.
Why is that a problem for you?
Because it makes for exceptionally dull reading. As a satire, "Candide" is a bit of a one-trick pony wherein its single "joke" grows increasingly more tedious with each repetition. Whereas an interesting protagonist can carry a hackneyed, formulaic plot, a dim-witted, cardboard cut-out like Candide had me rooting for the various inhabitants to just kill him already.
Post by Peter J Ross
In many, perhaps most, great stories, the narrator isn't the
protagonist. Is Jim the most active character in /Treasure Island/?
Yes, I'd say that Jim Hawkins is the most active character in "Treasure Island." He's not the most interesting character... but he's competing with such wonderful creations as Long John Silver, Blind Pew and Billy Bones. And his character is the one who faces various obstacles throughout the journey, overcomes them, and comes to experience growth as an individual: eventually balancing his belief in "Right" and "Wrong" with his friendship for the not-entirely-wicked Long John.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
As to conversing with them, I'm sure I'd enjoy Swift's company,
but Voltaire and I might have some difficulties getting past his
anti-semitism.
I don't remember noticing anti-Jewish sentiments in Voltaire's
plays and stories. But he lived in a time when everybody who wasn't
Jewish was at least slightly anti-Jewish, and would probably have
different opinions if he were resurrected to have dinner with us
today.
His "Dictionnaire Philosophique" contained several anti-semitic
passages: he basically called the Jewish people the most ignorant,
barbaric race on the planet (or something to that effect).
So what? Even a great enlightener can't be expected to be enlightened
about everything.
You'd asked whether I would find it enjoyable to be hanging out with him. My answer is that it would depend upon the topic of conversation. Were the subject of Judaism to arise, my being Jewish and his antisemitism would not make for a particularly enjoyable mix.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Even Edward Gibbon (of all human beings the least likely to be
star-struck) was moderately impressed by Voltaire, and Swift was
a hero to everybody who knew him.
Aren't they both people whose admirable personalities are
revealed in their writings?
Swift, yes. Voltaire, otoh, comes across as a snooty little putz.
Would you prefer my second favourite of the French philosophical
writers, D A F de Sade?
I might... but I haven't read him.
I did leaf through a book by him about 20 years ago, but didn't
think it looked interesting enough to purchase.
/Les Infortunes de la Vertu/ is the book to read. It's short, not
very pornographic, and written in Golden Age French prose.
Even in translation, I'm sure that its character as an über-Candide
won't be entirely lost.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
(But of course you haven't read Voltaire: he didn't write in
English. And Swift didn't write the sloppy variety of English
that you like. And your principal literary GOD is a pathetic
drunkard.)
From what I've read about him (and I've read just about
everything I could), he had an extremely low tolerance for
alcohol and would become extremely intoxicated on one or two
glasses. Unfortunately, it was considered poor manners to refuse
a drink from a host, so he was sometimes compelled to drink
socially.
Drunkards always have an excuse. "Dear teenage wife, I intended to
avoid getting falling-down drunk, but it was a social necessity.
Apologies for vomiting on your crinoline. It was society's fault,
not mine."
That's true. The question is whether we believe that he could get
extremely drunk on a glass or two of wine.
I believe him, as I have similar reactions to marijuana. One hit of
a joint can set me off on a series of intensive hallucinations
lasting several hours and generally making me violently ill.
My physical reactions to the evil poison were less extreme than yours,
but I'm glad that I gave up destroying my brain after two or three
attempts.
I don't believe it had any negative effects on my brain -- just some extremely adverse (and possibly deadly) ones on my immediate physical well-being. Basically, something in my genetic makeup renders it toxic.

Then again, I only used it for about three years, and its harmful effect on the brain may increase over time.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
I also had a friend in college who was a diagnosed schizophrenic
(actually I've had several diagnosed crazy friends and a diagnosed
crazy girlfriend over the years -- I believe it's my eccentricity
that attracts nutters) who could get ridiculously drunk off of a
couple of swigs of beer. Otoh, he'd also get drunk off of fruit
juice. Once when we were hanging out at the Caliente Cab, the
bartender flagged him from drinking grapefruit juice (it was in
reaction to the sugar).
You are Philip K Dick, and I claim my five pounds.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Now far be it from me to say that Poe was schizophrenic (although
some have theorized this), but people do experience extreme
reactions to alcohol and drugs, and creative genius might well be
especially so (the similarities between schizotypal thought patterns
and genius are well known).
Utter gibberish.
I didn't make it up.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4112911/

Front Psychol. 2014; 5: 813.
Published online 2014 Jul 28. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00813
PMCID: PMC4112911
PMID: 25120516
On the interrelation between reduced lateralization, schizotypy, and creativity
Annukka K. Lindell

That's just the first article my google search turned up. I'd first come across a similarly themed theory while in college.
Post by Peter J Ross
Poe wasn't a genius (despite your question-begging). He was a talented
hack at best. And his thirst for booze didn't help him.
Poe certainly considered himself a genius (and implied as much in numerous critiques and marginalia).

As Daniel Hoffman noted in "Poe, Poe, Poe, Poe, Poe, Poe, Poe," he saw his "Eureka" as a successful attempt to understand the creation of the universe based upon ratiocination. A mind that can fathom the mind of God must be equal to the mind of God. Poe, therefore, had a mind equivalent to that of God. (*Note: Hoffman believed that Poe felt this way; he did not entirely share Poe's supposed conclusion.")

Apart from inventing the Detective Story, The Cryptographic Story, and Science Fiction, his stories illustrate various psychological conditions before Freud, Jung et al. ever identified them. He wrote Essays, critiques, poetry, prose, plays, editorials, articles, and his poetically expressed theory of the Big Bang and the Expanding-Contracting Universe were a hundred years ahead of the scientific community.

Whether one likes Poe's writing is, of course, a matter of taste; but no serious scholar would question his genius.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
But what does that matter? Drunk or sober, the man composed
"Israfel," "The Conqueror Worm" and "Alone."
He was probably sober when he wrote his poems and stories. That
doesn't make them good.
His reputation has grown steadily in the years since his death, and
he is arguably the most respected American author of all time. He
is certainly an iconic figure -- as the Poe bobblehead and action
figure on my desk testify. I also have a Poe t-shirt and a Poe
sweatshirt and have seen Poe's face on women's purses, socks,
undergarments and pajamas. One doesn't become a cultural icon 150+
years after their death by having been a lousy writer.
And yet you're not a fan of such cultural icons as Emily Dickinson,
Jim Morrison or Kim Kardashian.
Why not? Why don't you have a bust of Kim Kardashian above your
chamber door? Her tweets and status updates may not be as tiresomely
metrical as Eddy Poe's, but I'm sure she could give Bliss Cartman a
run for his money.
I like several of the Doors' records. But Kim Kardashian is simply one of those celebrities who's known for being famous (and for homemade sex videos).

And in the latter case, you're also confusing a cultural icon of the moment with lasting/posthumous celebrity.

When we speak of great writers throughout world history, Poe is rightfully noted alongside of Shakespeare. Today's youth are blissfully unaware of many of the cultural icons of the 1950s and 60s (and earlier); but they all know who Shakespeare and Poe were. That's quite a feat when you think about how long ago they lived.
Peter J Ross
2019-10-10 21:33:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Thu, 10 Oct 2019 13:48:48 -0700 (PDT),
Coco DeSockmonkey wrote:

<...>

I think I've been wonderfully patient in trying to teach you a few
elementary facts about poetry, music, linguistics and other things
that your intellectual and cultural superiors sometimes discuss.

But you've learned nothing, and I observe that (as if you wanted to
prove that you've learned nothing) you've started reposting the
comically illiterate spew that you idiotically imagine to be poetry.

As you know from past experience, I killfile you whenever you do that.

So fuck off, Creepy Mike.

Don't die slowly and painfully of cancer.

Jump off a tall building instead.
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
Michael Pendragon
2019-10-11 04:04:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Thu, 10 Oct 2019 13:48:48 -0700 (PDT),
<...>
I think I've been wonderfully patient in trying to teach you a few
elementary facts about poetry, music, linguistics and other things
that your intellectual and cultural superiors sometimes discuss.
But you've learned nothing, and I observe that (as if you wanted to
prove that you've learned nothing) you've started reposting the
comically illiterate spew that you idiotically imagine to be poetry.
As you know from past experience, I killfile you whenever you do that.
So fuck off, Creepy Mike.
Don't die slowly and painfully of cancer.
Jump off a tall building instead.
My apologies, Peter, but I'm afraid I'm unable to oblige... I suffer from severe acrophobia.
Will Dockery
2019-10-11 04:37:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Thu, 10 Oct 2019 13:48:48 -0700 (PDT),
<...>
I think I've been wonderfully patient in trying to teach you a few
elementary facts about poetry, music, linguistics and other things
that your intellectual and cultural superiors sometimes discuss.
But you've learned nothing, and I observe that (as if you wanted to
prove that you've learned nothing) you've started reposting the
comically illiterate spew that you idiotically imagine to be poetry.
As you know from past experience, I killfile you whenever you do that.
So fuck off, Creepy Mike.
Don't die slowly and painfully of cancer.
Jump off a tall building instead.
My apologies, Peter, but I'm afraid I'm unable to oblige... I suffer from severe acrophobia.
Damn, you just got the PJR Cancer Hex...

;)
Will Dockery
2019-10-11 05:09:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Thu, 10 Oct 2019 13:48:48 -0700 (PDT),
<...>
I think I've been wonderfully patient in trying to teach you a few
elementary facts about poetry, music, linguistics and other things
that your intellectual and cultural superiors sometimes discuss.
But you've learned nothing, and I observe that (as if you wanted to
prove that you've learned nothing) you've started reposting the
comically illiterate spew that you idiotically imagine to be poetry.
As you know from past experience, I killfile you whenever you do that.
So fuck off, Creepy Mike.
Don't die slowly and painfully of cancer.
Jump off a tall building instead.
My apologies, Peter, but I'm afraid I'm unable to oblige... I suffer from severe acrophobia.
Damn, you just got the PJR Death Hex...

;)
Hieronymous Corey
2019-10-11 08:46:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
LOL
Hieronymous Corey
2019-10-11 09:30:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
No good deed goes unpunished.
ME
2019-10-11 11:01:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Thu, 10 Oct 2019 13:48:48 -0700 (PDT),
<...>
I think I've been wonderfully patient in trying to teach you a few
elementary facts about poetry, music, linguistics and other things
that your intellectual and cultural superiors sometimes discuss.
But you've learned nothing, and I observe that (as if you wanted to
prove that you've learned nothing) you've started reposting the
comically illiterate spew that you idiotically imagine to be poetry.
As you know from past experience, I killfile you whenever you do that.
So fuck off, Creepy Mike.
Don't die slowly and painfully of cancer.
Jump off a tall building instead.
My apologies, Peter, but I'm afraid I'm unable to oblige... I suffer from severe acrophobia.
Damn, you just got the PJR Death Hex...
;)
Evidently his death hex are of no consequence, you’re still here pissbum.
Now, if he were to put ‘feet on his prayers’......
Hieronymous Corey
2019-10-11 11:07:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
LOL
Hieronymous Corey
2019-10-11 11:16:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Is it bad to wish you a good death?
Hieronymous Corey
2019-10-11 12:11:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Would it be bad of me to wish you the
strength to conquer your fear of heights?
Michael Pendragon
2019-10-11 12:23:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hieronymous Corey
Would it be bad of me to wish you the
strength to conquer your fear of heights?
No. Wish away. Two of the light bulbs in my living room need changing, and my son won't be back from college until Thanksgiving.


Michael Pendragon
"Memories... pressed between the pages just like fine wine...…........"
-- Stinky George Sulzbach, career pissbum
Hieronymous Corey
2019-10-11 12:27:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
If I showed you Jacob's Ladder, written out in rhyme,
would you feel the need to read, or be afraid to climb?
Z***@none.i2p
2019-10-11 13:26:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hieronymous Corey wrote on Fri, 11 October 2019 11:16
Post by Hieronymous Corey
Is it bad to wish you a good death?
Death is never a good thing to wish on another man, Pastor Corey.......
Hieronymous Corey
2019-10-11 13:29:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
If that's true, then I've been a bad, bad man for a long, long time.
Michael Pendragon
2019-10-11 13:29:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Z***@none.i2p
Hieronymous Corey wrote on Fri, 11 October 2019 11:16
Post by Hieronymous Corey
Is it bad to wish you a good death?
Death is never a good thing to wish on another man, Pastor Corey.......
Here's hoping you freeze to death this winter, Stinky.



Michael Pendragon
"Thanks for the nod on my rod, General Zod.
Watch my rod nod at the sight of your bod.
I'll shoot my wad if you'll call me your God.
So thanks for the nod on my rod, General Zod."
-- Wee Whiny Willie Dockery, quintessential dumb fuck, pissbum & homophobe
Z***@none.i2p
2019-10-11 13:32:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Michael Pendragon wrote on Fri, 11 October 2019 13:29
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Z***@none.i2p
Hieronymous Corey wrote on Fri, 11 October 2019 11:16
Post by Hieronymous Corey
Is it bad to wish you a good death?
Death is never a good thing to wish on another man, Pastor Corey.......
Here's hoping you freeze to death this winter
Doubtful........
Michael Pendragon
2019-10-11 13:38:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Z***@none.i2p
Michael Pendragon wrote on Fri, 11 October 2019 13:29
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Z***@none.i2p
Hieronymous Corey wrote on Fri, 11 October 2019 11:16
Post by Hieronymous Corey
Is it bad to wish you a good death?
Death is never a good thing to wish on another man, Pastor Corey.......
Here's hoping you freeze to death this winter
Doubtful........
Then at least have the decency to die of pneumonia.



Michael Pendragon
"Thanks for the nod on my rod, General Zod.
Watch my rod nod at the sight of your bod.
I'll shoot my wad if you'll call me your God.
So thanks for the nod on my rod, General Zod."
-- Wee Whiny Willie Dockery, quintessential dumb fuck, pissbum & homophobe
Z***@none.i2p
2019-10-11 13:46:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Michael Pendragon wrote on Fri, 11 October 2019 13:38
Post by Z***@none.i2p
Michael Pendragon wrote on Fri, 11 October 2019 13:29
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Z***@none.i2p
Hieronymous Corey wrote on Fri, 11 October 2019 11:16
Post by Hieronymous Corey
Is it bad to wish you a good death?
Death is never a good thing to wish on another man, Pastor Corey.......
Here's hoping you freeze to death this winter
Doubtful........
Then at least e
Shut up, you woman hating fool......

Ha ha ha.....
Michael Pendragon
2019-10-11 12:19:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Thu, 10 Oct 2019 13:48:48 -0700 (PDT),
<...>
I think I've been wonderfully patient in trying to teach you a few
elementary facts about poetry, music, linguistics and other things
that your intellectual and cultural superiors sometimes discuss.
But you've learned nothing, and I observe that (as if you wanted to
prove that you've learned nothing) you've started reposting the
comically illiterate spew that you idiotically imagine to be poetry.
As you know from past experience, I killfile you whenever you do that.
So fuck off, Creepy Mike.
Don't die slowly and painfully of cancer.
Jump off a tall building instead.
My apologies, Peter, but I'm afraid I'm unable to oblige... I suffer from severe acrophobia.
Damn, you just got the PJR Death Hex...
Learn to read, Dumbfuck.
Hieronymous Corey
2019-10-11 12:23:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
How severe is your fear? I take it you don't
fly well, but can you at least climb ladders?
Michael Pendragon
2019-10-11 12:50:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hieronymous Corey
How severe is your fear? I take it you don't
fly well, but can you at least climb ladders?
I don't fly at all -- although my fear of flying is unrelated to my acrophobia. About an hour into the return flight from my honeymoon our twin engine plane shook for a moment, as though we'd just hit a bad pocket of air. The pilot then announced that one of our engines was out and that we'd be returning to the airport. I was a little nervous, but fine. An hour later we land and wait on the plane. AFAIK no one inspects the aircraft. After another 45 minutes, the pilot announces that the plane is perfectly capable of flying with one engine and that we'll be taking off again. O...kay. About twenty minutes into our second attempt, the pilot announces that we'll be returning to the airport again as our navigation equipment is no longer functioning. So we land and wait on the plane for another half hour. Again, I saw no sign of anyone inspecting the plane. The pilot then announces reassures us that we don't really need the navigation equipment anyway and we'll be taking off again. At that point about half the passengers got up and exited the plane (my wife and I included).

I figure that if my experience is in any way indicative of airline safety standards, then I'm keeping as far away from them as possible.

Regarding my acrophobia, flying doesn't bother me in the least, as I'm seated and my feet are on a floor. I have a difficult time descending stairs (especially when there's no handrail, there are no risers, there are more than eight steps, or the stairs are in an outdoor setting). I can climb two or three rungs of a ladder and can stand on top of a chair or table... but with great difficulty and only when absolutely necessary.

A few years ago, I rode this glass elevator to the top of an observation point at the Mashantucket Pequot Museum & Research Center -- I was in a state of white knuckled fear the entire time. Otoh I can ride rollercoasters (wooden ones only -- no loops) and only experience fear while ascending the initial hill.
Hieronymous Corey
2019-10-11 13:18:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I used to be a boom lift operator. I've probably
spent several thousand hours in a small bucket,
suspended a hundred or so feet above the ground.
I don't do that anymore, but my son does. I got him
into the Union, and now he's better than I ever was.
General Zod
2019-10-12 05:16:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hieronymous Corey
How severe is your fear? I take it you don't
fly well, but can you at least climb ladders?
Ha ha ha what a wussss….
Michael Pendragon
2019-10-12 05:31:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by General Zod
Post by Hieronymous Corey
How severe is your fear? I take it you don't
fly well, but can you at least climb ladders?
Ha ha ha what a wussss….
Yes... but then I'm clean, didn't get my wardrobe out of a Goodwill bin, and don't live in a tent.

Given a choice between the two options, I'll go with wuss any day.
General Zod
2019-10-12 05:33:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by General Zod
Post by Hieronymous Corey
How severe is your fear? I take it you don't
fly well, but can you at least climb ladders?
Ha ha ha what a wussss….
Yes... but then I'm clean
You claim to be.....

And I am clean as well, thanks to the homeless network shower program, which also allows us to do laundry...….
Will Dockery
2019-10-11 12:44:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
I think I've been wonderfully patient in trying to teach you a few
elementary facts about poetry, music, linguistics and other things
that your intellectual and cultural superiors sometimes discuss.
But you've learned nothing, and I observe that (as if you wanted to
prove that you've learned nothing) you've started reposting the
comically illiterate spew that you idiotically imagine to be poetry.
As you know from past experience, I killfile you whenever you do that.
So fuck off, Creepy Mike.
Don't die slowly and painfully of cancer.
Jump off a tall building instead.
My apologies, Peter, but I'm afraid I'm unable to oblige... I suffer from severe acrophobia.
Damn, you just got the PJR Death Hex...
Learn to
Looks like you should find yourself another mentor, Pendragon.

;)
Michael Pendragon
2019-10-11 13:03:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
I think I've been wonderfully patient in trying to teach you a few
elementary facts about poetry, music, linguistics and other things
that your intellectual and cultural superiors sometimes discuss.
But you've learned nothing, and I observe that (as if you wanted to
prove that you've learned nothing) you've started reposting the
comically illiterate spew that you idiotically imagine to be poetry.
As you know from past experience, I killfile you whenever you do that.
So fuck off, Creepy Mike.
Don't die slowly and painfully of cancer.
Jump off a tall building instead.
My apologies, Peter, but I'm afraid I'm unable to oblige... I suffer from severe acrophobia.
Damn, you just got the PJR Death Hex...
Learn to
Looks like you should find yourself another mentor, Pendragon.
Funny you should think so. Prior to Peter's outburst (above), I'd been under the impression that I was mentoring him.

I suppose it all boils down to his having preceded my arrival here by ten or fifteen years.


Michael Pendragon
INTERVIEWER: I suppose you don't just hold it?
WILL DOCKERY: No. I let it out just like everybody else does.
INTERVIEWER: How?
WILL DOCKERY: Well, to pee, you just go out back and pee.
INTERVIEWER: How about to poop?
WILL DOCKERY: For that, you dig a hole. Then you poop into the hole and cover it up.
Z***@none.i2p
2019-10-11 13:09:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Michael Pendragon wrote on Fri, 11 October 2019 13:03
Post by Will Dockery
<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
I think I've been wonderfully patient in trying to teach you a few
elementary facts about poetry, music, linguistics and other things
that your intellectual and cultural superiors sometimes discuss.
But you've learned nothing, and I observe that (as if you wanted to
prove that you've learned nothing) you've started reposting the
comically illiterate spew that you idiotically imagine to be poetry.
As you know from past experience, I killfile you whenever you do that.
So fuck off, Creepy Mike.
Don't die slowly and painfully of cancer.
Jump off a tall building instead.
My apologies, Peter, but I'm afraid I'm unable to oblige... I suffer from severe acrophobia.
Damn, you just got the PJR Death Hex...
Learn to
Looks like you should find yourself another mentor, Pendragon.
Funny you should think so. Prior to Peter's outburst (above), I'd been under the impression that I was .
You've been sucking up to Peter and slurping him at every post for a coupe of years now Pendragon....
We all know that, certainly Peter does.....

Ha Ha ha.....
Peter J Ross
2019-09-29 16:45:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Mon, 23 Sep 2019 13:51:07 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Thu, 19 Sep 2019 20:55:39 -0700
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 15 Sep 2019 21:02:56 -0700
<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
IIRC, the basic textbooks ran as follows: Anonymous ballads
("Gae Up an' Bar the Door," "Barbara Allen," etc.), "Beowulf,"
"The Canterbury Tales," Elizabethan (Donne, Marlowe,
Shakespeare), "Paradise Lost," Pope and the Enlightenment,
Pepys, The Romantics (Blake, Byron, Shelley, Keats),
Wordsworth, Coleridge, Poe, Dickens, Twain, Emerson, Thoreau,
Crane, Melville, Dickinson, Whitman.
I was taught Shakespeare, though I was taught in a way that
almost destroyed my potential enthusiasm. (I still find him more
difficult to enjoy than Racine, Goethe or the Greeks.)
We read "Romeo & Juliet," "Julius Caesar" and "MacBeth" in high
school. The first two didn't do much for me at the time, but
"MacBeth" really fired my imagination. I memorized the Weird
Sisters' speeches and MacBeth's great soliloquy, "Tomorrow,
tomorrow and tomorrow..."
At school I read those three and also The Merchant of Venice,
Hamlet and Twelfth Night. Julius Caesar and The Merchant were my
favourites, and even today I can probably recite from memory more
lines from them than from any other English play.
In that case, they couldn't have destroyed all of your potential enthusiasm for the Bard.
As I said above, they almost did.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Several years after graduating high school, a girlfriend bought
me the collected plays of W.S., and I read about 2/3s of them --
mostly the tragedies and comedies (as opposed to the histories).
I'm a big fan of "MacBeth," "Hamlet" and, especially, "A
Midsummer Night's Dream."
My favourites are mostly the history plays. The trilogy of Richard
II and the two parts of Henry IV are probably the plays I most
admire, though I still have more fun rereading Faust, Iphigenie auf
Tauris, Andromache and Iphigénie than anything in English.
My impression has always been that if you were to rank your favorite
languages, English would be fairly low on the list.
If English had become a dead language a hundred years ago, I'd like it
better.

Anybody who tries to write good literary English nowadays reminds me
of Lucian's attempts to write good literary Greek circa AD 150, long
after the living tradition had perished. No matter how admirable the
achievement, it's never going to be quite as good as the real thing.

<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Otherwise, I wasn't taught any writer earlier than ~The
Romantics~ in English Literature classes.
I thought you'd had the best education money could buy. What
happened? We read extended passages from "Beowulf," "Canterbury
Tales" and "Paradise Lost" in 9th grade.
And since we're practically the same age, we obviously went to
high school at the same time -- at most, I graduated a year
before you (1982).
I had almost the best education I can imagine in Latin, French and
Mathematics. I had a decent education in Greek, German, Hebrew and
Physics. The deficiencies in my knowledge of many other subjects
are mostly my own fault, but the deficiencies in my knowledge of
English literature are my teachers' fault, and my understanding of
the English language (comprehensive and systematic though it may
seem) is almost entirely self-taught, and thus shakier than I'd
like it to be.
I consider myself largely self-taught in both English literature and
language, as well;
In your case, it shows!
Post by Michael Pendragon
although insofar as high school goes, it was
entirely my own fault. I had no interest in high school, cut
classes regularly, never bothered myself with homework, and had no
plans to pursue a college education... or to become another cog in
the 9-to-5 working world.
I was (and am) a slacker too. This is why I'm in AAPC, instead of
being in the Cabinet or the Hebdomadal Council.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Up until my senior year, I was caught up in Romantic notion of
heeding the "Song of the Open Road." My plans were to pack up my
guitar, my metal detector, my KA-BAR USMC fighting knife and a
notebook for writing poetry and hop a series of freight trains out
to California where I could pan for gold, seek the Lost Dutchman's
Mine, where I planned to enjoy numerous adventures that could later
serve as the basis for a series of exciting adventure novels.
Eventually common sense prevailed. I realized that I'd end up
smelling like... well, Stinky George; and losing all my teeth
like... Stinky George; and probably getting beaten, robbed and raped
by other vagabonds like... Stinky George; and possibly even getting
killed. So I enlisted in the Navy instead, like Stinky George.
My father was a sailor, but the closest I've come to seafaring was
propelling a punt along the Cherwell.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Afterwards, I gave myself a graduate level education in World
Literature, English Composition, History, Philosophy, Psychology and
Cinema Studies (History, Theory and Criticism) and Production.
I have no doubt that you know a lot about films.
Post by Michael Pendragon
I must, however, confess that I failed to even so much as open a
Math or Science book (unless one counts Lucretious).
If you mean Titus Lucretius, he was neither a mathematician nor a
scientist. He was a minor philosopher and a very good poet.

You'll find mathematics in Plato and science in Aristotle, but you'll
find neither in Lucretius, even if you learn Latin well enough to read
him.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Fortunately, once I finally enrolled in college (at the age of 24),
I found that I only needed to take one Algebra course; and my
roommate just happened to be a math major, who worked in the math
department and who was happy to do my homework in return for beer
and was able to provide me with photocopies of the math tests in
advance. As for Science, I took Environmental Science I and II
which, even as part of the Honors program curriculum, was relatively
easy (compared to biology or chemistry).
I'm grateful to you. I thought nothing was easier than Biology or
Chemistry (or, easiest of all, Biochemistry), but now I've learned
that there is such a thing as Environmental Science.
Post by Michael Pendragon
In short, college was a breeze. And, as an added benefit, I had
plenty of time to indulge in such extracurricular activities as
editing the school art & literary magazine, chasing girls, getting
drunk, chasing girls, experimenting with mind-expanding substances,
chasing girls, etc.
I think you mean "mind-destroying substances".
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Modern English literature is a separate course.
Is there such a thing as modern English literature? Very nearly
all of it seems to me to be modern English garbage.
I agree that it's a misnomer, but they do offer college courses
in it. I took electives in "Science Fiction" and "World Lit
1750-Present" (or something to that effect).
I'm inclined to think that such courses lack educational value. You
pass exams by reading stuff that you'd probably read without
prompting.
Until that time, I'd been reading the canon of "Great Literature"
(Homer, Virgil, Plato, Aristotle, Sophocles, Dante, Boccaccio,
Chaucer, Bunyan, Milton, et al.) and my only experience with Science
Fiction was through the writings of Edgar Poe and Jules Verne.
I strongly suspect that you've read only three or four of the authors
you name, since you can't read Greek, Latin, Tuscan or (probably)
Middle English.
Post by Michael Pendragon
I was similarly new to the works in the modernish world lit course
as well (Racine, Flaubert, Joyce and such), so both ended up being
very educational.
I strongly suspect that you haven't read Racine or Flaubert.
Post by Michael Pendragon
That is, I intentionally selected lit courses featuring writings
that I was unfamiliar with. I also took electives that challenged
me in some way (music appreciation, acting, French, Existentialism,
photography). Apart from being profoundly mathematically impaired,
I consider myself quite the Renaissance man.
The original Renaissance Men wrote in Latin and read not only Latin
but also Greek. Petrarch and Dante were Renaissance men. Milton and
Marvell were Renaissance Men. Compared with real Renaissance Men,
you're a churl, and I'm a yeoman at best.

<...>
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
Michael Pendragon
2019-09-29 21:51:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Mon, 23 Sep 2019 13:51:07 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Thu, 19 Sep 2019 20:55:39 -0700
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 15 Sep 2019 21:02:56 -0700
<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
IIRC, the basic textbooks ran as follows: Anonymous ballads
("Gae Up an' Bar the Door," "Barbara Allen," etc.), "Beowulf,"
"The Canterbury Tales," Elizabethan (Donne, Marlowe,
Shakespeare), "Paradise Lost," Pope and the Enlightenment,
Pepys, The Romantics (Blake, Byron, Shelley, Keats),
Wordsworth, Coleridge, Poe, Dickens, Twain, Emerson, Thoreau,
Crane, Melville, Dickinson, Whitman.
I was taught Shakespeare, though I was taught in a way that
almost destroyed my potential enthusiasm. (I still find him more
difficult to enjoy than Racine, Goethe or the Greeks.)
We read "Romeo & Juliet," "Julius Caesar" and "MacBeth" in high
school. The first two didn't do much for me at the time, but
"MacBeth" really fired my imagination. I memorized the Weird
Sisters' speeches and MacBeth's great soliloquy, "Tomorrow,
tomorrow and tomorrow..."
At school I read those three and also The Merchant of Venice,
Hamlet and Twelfth Night. Julius Caesar and The Merchant were my
favourites, and even today I can probably recite from memory more
lines from them than from any other English play.
In that case, they couldn't have destroyed all of your potential
enthusiasm for the Bard.
As I said above, they almost did.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Several years after graduating high school, a girlfriend bought
me the collected plays of W.S., and I read about 2/3s of them --
mostly the tragedies and comedies (as opposed to the histories).
I'm a big fan of "MacBeth," "Hamlet" and, especially, "A
Midsummer Night's Dream."
My favourites are mostly the history plays. The trilogy of Richard
II and the two parts of Henry IV are probably the plays I most
admire, though I still have more fun rereading Faust, Iphigenie auf
Tauris, Andromache and Iphigénie than anything in English.
My impression has always been that if you were to rank your favorite
languages, English would be fairly low on the list.
If English had become a dead language a hundred years ago, I'd like it
better.
Why am I not surprised?
Post by Peter J Ross
Anybody who tries to write good literary English nowadays reminds me
of Lucian's attempts to write good literary Greek circa AD 150, long
after the living tradition had perished. No matter how admirable the
achievement, it's never going to be quite as good as the real thing.
That's a broad generalization and not entirely true. Most people today can't write literary English because they've only experienced it through a handful of books they only half-read, and barely understood, in high school. And when they attempt to emulate it, they fall victim to a natural tendency to overwrite. Since they found the classics difficult to understand, they conclude that the quality of one's writing increases proportionately with one's inability to comprehend it.

When I published my twin literary journals, I specifically called for pre-Hemingway era writing in my guidelines. And, while I received a lot of laughably bad attempts that fall into the category you've described, I also received many well-written pieces that could go toe-to-toe with the classics any day.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Otherwise, I wasn't taught any writer earlier than ~The
Romantics~ in English Literature classes.
I thought you'd had the best education money could buy. What
happened? We read extended passages from "Beowulf," "Canterbury
Tales" and "Paradise Lost" in 9th grade.
And since we're practically the same age, we obviously went to
high school at the same time -- at most, I graduated a year
before you (1982).
I had almost the best education I can imagine in Latin, French and
Mathematics. I had a decent education in Greek, German, Hebrew and
Physics. The deficiencies in my knowledge of many other subjects
are mostly my own fault, but the deficiencies in my knowledge of
English literature are my teachers' fault, and my understanding of
the English language (comprehensive and systematic though it may
seem) is almost entirely self-taught, and thus shakier than I'd
like it to be.
I consider myself largely self-taught in both English literature and
language, as well;
In your case, it shows!
I sincerely hope so. I like to think that there is not only an original, but a recognizable, style to my work.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
although insofar as high school goes, it was
entirely my own fault. I had no interest in high school, cut
classes regularly, never bothered myself with homework, and had no
plans to pursue a college education... or to become another cog in
the 9-to-5 working world.
I was (and am) a slacker too. This is why I'm in AAPC, instead of
being in the Cabinet or the Hebdomadal Council.
Wikipedia says that the Hebdomadal Council was replaced in 2000, so you're off the hook on that one. As to the Cabinet, why do you think you could be a minister?
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Up until my senior year, I was caught up in Romantic notion of
heeding the "Song of the Open Road." My plans were to pack up my
guitar, my metal detector, my KA-BAR USMC fighting knife and a
notebook for writing poetry and hop a series of freight trains out
to California where I could pan for gold, seek the Lost Dutchman's
Mine, where I planned to enjoy numerous adventures that could later
serve as the basis for a series of exciting adventure novels.
Eventually common sense prevailed. I realized that I'd end up
smelling like... well, Stinky George; and losing all my teeth
like... Stinky George; and probably getting beaten, robbed and raped
by other vagabonds like... Stinky George; and possibly even getting
killed. So I enlisted in the Navy instead, like Stinky George.
My father was a sailor, but the closest I've come to seafaring was
propelling a punt along the Cherwell.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Afterwards, I gave myself a graduate level education in World
Literature, English Composition, History, Philosophy, Psychology and
Cinema Studies (History, Theory and Criticism) and Production.
I have no doubt that you know a lot about films.
Well, that's something.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
I must, however, confess that I failed to even so much as open a
Math or Science book (unless one counts Lucretious).
If you mean Titus Lucretius, he was neither a mathematician nor a
scientist. He was a minor philosopher and a very good poet.
I was only citing him as a sort-or-scientist (although I realize that my statement was unclear). I believe that "De rerum natura" was quite scientific for its day. His atomic theory, or example, is more along the lines of science than philosophy (at least the philosophies of Antiquity: Socrates/Plato, Aristotle).
Post by Peter J Ross
You'll find mathematics in Plato and science in Aristotle, but you'll
find neither in Lucretius, even if you learn Latin well enough to read
him.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Fortunately, once I finally enrolled in college (at the age of 24),
I found that I only needed to take one Algebra course; and my
roommate just happened to be a math major, who worked in the math
department and who was happy to do my homework in return for beer
and was able to provide me with photocopies of the math tests in
advance. As for Science, I took Environmental Science I and II
which, even as part of the Honors program curriculum, was relatively
easy (compared to biology or chemistry).
I'm grateful to you. I thought nothing was easier than Biology or
Chemistry (or, easiest of all, Biochemistry), but now I've learned
that there is such a thing as Environmental Science.
A.k.a. Earth Science. (The former in HS, the latter in college.)
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
In short, college was a breeze. And, as an added benefit, I had
plenty of time to indulge in such extracurricular activities as
editing the school art & literary magazine, chasing girls, getting
drunk, chasing girls, experimenting with mind-expanding substances,
chasing girls, etc.
I think you mean "mind-destroying substances".
It's all a matter of perspective.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Modern English literature is a separate course.
Is there such a thing as modern English literature? Very nearly
all of it seems to me to be modern English garbage.
I agree that it's a misnomer, but they do offer college courses
in it. I took electives in "Science Fiction" and "World Lit
1750-Present" (or something to that effect).
I'm inclined to think that such courses lack educational value. You
pass exams by reading stuff that you'd probably read without prompting.
Until that time, I'd been reading the canon of "Great Literature"
(Homer, Virgil, Plato, Aristotle, Sophocles, Dante, Boccaccio,
Chaucer, Bunyan, Milton, et al.) and my only experience with Science
Fiction was through the writings of Edgar Poe and Jules Verne.
I strongly suspect that you've read only three or four of the authors
you name, since you can't read Greek, Latin, Tuscan or (probably)
Middle English.
I've read them in translation, of course. And, yes, I agree that it isn't the same as reading them in the language they were composed in -- but it was the best I was able to manage. Even if I were to learn a second language, I could never hope to understand its complexities well enough to do a great literary work justice.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
I was similarly new to the works in the modernish world lit course
as well (Racine, Flaubert, Joyce and such), so both ended up being
very educational.
I strongly suspect that you haven't read Racine or Flaubert.
Again, in translation. That time I had an excuse, as the books were assigned by the professor. Insisting that we read them in French would not have gone over well.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
That is, I intentionally selected lit courses featuring writings
that I was unfamiliar with. I also took electives that challenged
me in some way (music appreciation, acting, French, Existentialism,
photography). Apart from being profoundly mathematically impaired,
I consider myself quite the Renaissance man.
The original Renaissance Men wrote in Latin and read not only Latin
but also Greek. Petrarch and Dante were Renaissance men. Milton and
Marvell were Renaissance Men. Compared with real Renaissance Men,
you're a churl, and I'm a yeoman at best.
But I could kick Milton's ass on the Silver Screen edition of Trivial Pursuit.
Michael Pendragon
2019-10-06 04:07:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:51:35 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Mon, 23 Sep 2019 13:51:07 -0700 (PDT),
<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Anybody who tries to write good literary English nowadays reminds
me of Lucian's attempts to write good literary Greek circa AD 150,
long after the living tradition had perished. No matter how
admirable the achievement, it's never going to be quite as good as
the real thing.
That's a broad generalization and not entirely true. Most people
today can't write literary English because they've only experienced
it through a handful of books they only half-read, and barely
understood, in high school. And when they attempt to emulate it,
they fall victim to a natural tendency to overwrite. Since they
found the classics difficult to understand, they conclude that the
quality of one's writing increases proportionately with one's
inability to comprehend it.
You miss the important point that modern teachers are as baffled by
literary English as their students are. Nobody alive today is a fluent
native speaker or writer of the language that had its Golden Age from
Chaucer to Pope and its Silver Age from Byron to Eliot. The
apprentices used to learn from the masters, but it's been a long time
since there were any living masters to learn from.
I have to take issue with your assessment of the literary ages. The Golden Age would have been from Blake to Carman (Eliot has no place there), with the Silver Age preceding it.

As to the modern teachers; not having studied with every English teacher on the planet, neither of us is in a position to know how well versed in literary English they might be. Also, in accordance with your claim, neither of us would have been taught literary English, and are therefore in no position to know whether we understand it or not.

I found Chaucer's English fairly easy to understand -- although, admittedly, I needed to look up a large number of words. Grammatically, it's different from modern English, but that difference is not a qualitative one. Of course, there may have been subtleties in his poetry that sailed clear over my head... but unless I apprentice myself to a master (and you're certain they're all dead), there's no way for me to ever know.
Post by Michael Pendragon
When I published my twin literary journals,
The Castor Review and the Pollux Monthly?
Cute. In publishing, two similar journals put out by the same publisher (or by different publishers in connection with one another) are referred to as "sister publications." I refer to my journals as "twins," as they were practically identical. Both used the front covers featuring only the magazine's name and listing several of the authors whose work appears in it (artwork was reserved for the back cover and interior). Both used many of the same writers and artists, and both were essentially dark in terms of subject. I'd started "Songs of Innocence" because I was receiving a good deal of not-quite-horror poetry that was too good to pass up, but that wasn't horrific enough for "Penny Dreadful."
Post by Michael Pendragon
I specifically called
for pre-Hemingway era writing in my guidelines.
One of the stupid books I was required to read at my stupid school was
/The Old Man and the Sea/, which I loathed. But among Evil Ernie's
American contemporaries were some excellent prose writers, such as
Runyon, Hammett and Chandler.
I had to read that in college as part of my Fundamental Communications I course. I'm a big fan of the 1958 film adaptation starring Spencer Tracy, and had high expectations for the book. I've been summarizing the book ever since with a mock quotation from its opening: "He was an old man. And he liked to fish. Fish, old man, fish."

I haven't read anything by Runyon (and I really should) or Chandler (although I did read his original screenplay for "The Blue Dahlia," but I did read Hammett's "The Maltese Falcon" and was surprised to discover how closely the 1941 film followed it. It was a well written book, only when compared to Hemingway or Stephen King.
Post by Michael Pendragon
And, while I received a lot of laughably bad attempts that fall into
the category you've described, I also received many well-written
pieces that could go toe-to-toe with the classics any day.
I don't believe that you could tell the difference.
I don't mean that entirely as an insult: I'd have trouble telling the
difference too. Like you, I live in the Dark Age that has followed the
Silver Age of English literature.
Allow me to put it this way: I found the bulk of the poetry I published to be every bit as thrilling (to me) as any I'd ever read.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
although insofar as high school goes, it was entirely my own
fault. I had no interest in high school, cut classes regularly,
never bothered myself with homework, and had no plans to pursue a
college education... or to become another cog in the 9-to-5
working world.
I was (and am) a slacker too. This is why I'm in AAPC, instead of
being in the Cabinet or the Hebdomadal Council.
Wikipedia says that the Hebdomadal Council was replaced in 2000, so
you're off the hook on that one.
*sigh* Why is it considered progressive to replace institutions that
work reasonably well with institutions that don't work at all?
Post by Michael Pendragon
As to the Cabinet, why do you think you could be a minister?
In the late 1980s there were plans to adopt me as a candidate for a
safe parliamentary seat. If I'd gone along with those plans, I'd have
been an MP since 1992, and it would have been difficult for Boris to
keep me out of his Cabinet.
But I preferred the road more travelled by. It isn't possible to be a
professional politician without becoming a professional freak.
I find that being an amateur freak is much more fun.
Yes, I have a vague recollection of your having mentioned the Parliamentary seat offer in the past.

In the late 80s you were in your mid-20s and, IIRC, hadn't completed college. Was the seat offered due to family connections? Or had you risen to a position of prominence in your given field?
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
I must, however, confess that I failed to even so much as open a
Math or Science book (unless one counts Lucretious).
If you mean Titus Lucretius, he was neither a mathematician nor a
scientist. He was a minor philosopher and a very good poet.
I was only citing him as a sort-of-scientist (although I realize
that my statement was unclear). I believe that "De rerum natura"
was quite scientific for its day. His atomic theory, for example,
is more along the lines of science than philosophy (at least the
philosophies of Antiquity: Socrates/Plato, Aristotle).
The atomic theory of Lucretius (which he borrowed from Epicurus, who
borrowed it from Democritus) has nothing to do with the atomic theory
of modern science. It's a philosophical fantasy. The competing theory
that everything is made of fire, water, air and earth was closer to
modern science, because it was based on observations of the real
world.
IIRC, Lucretius realized that matter was made up of atoms. Since we can't see atoms with the naked eye, and since the microscope had yet to be invented, I consider that alone to be a major step in the field of scientific theory.
But Lucretius is, at his best, one of the most eloquent of Latin
poets. The silliness of his pseudo-science doesn't matter.
<...>
--
PJR :-)
τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
Peter J Ross
2019-10-10 18:01:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sat, 5 Oct 2019 21:07:09 -0700 (PDT),
On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 3:24:05 PM UTC-4, Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:51:35 -0700
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Mon, 23 Sep 2019 13:51:07 -0700
<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Anybody who tries to write good literary English nowadays
reminds me of Lucian's attempts to write good literary Greek
circa AD 150, long after the living tradition had perished. No
matter how admirable the achievement, it's never going to be
quite as good as the real thing.
That's a broad generalization and not entirely true. Most people
today can't write literary English because they've only
experienced it through a handful of books they only half-read,
and barely understood, in high school. And when they attempt to
emulate it, they fall victim to a natural tendency to overwrite.
Since they found the classics difficult to understand, they
conclude that the quality of one's writing increases
proportionately with one's inability to comprehend it.
You miss the important point that modern teachers are as baffled by
literary English as their students are. Nobody alive today is a
fluent native speaker or writer of the language that had its Golden
Age from Chaucer to Pope and its Silver Age from Byron to Eliot.
The apprentices used to learn from the masters, but it's been a
long time since there were any living masters to learn from.
I have to take issue with your assessment of the literary ages. The
Golden Age would have been from Blake to Carman (Eliot has no place
there), with the Silver Age preceding it.
Even if your taste in poetry were less corrupt, it would remain a fact
that Golden Ages always precede Silver Ages. It's a characteristic of
a Silver Age that its authors have a sneaking suspicion that they're
overshadowed by their Golden Age counterparts. What precedes a Golden
Age is a Primitive Age.

The pattern is clearest in Latin: Ennius (Primitive), Vergil (Golden),
Statius (Silver); or Plautus (Primitive), Terence (Golden), Petronius
(Silver), etc etc.
As to the modern teachers; not having studied with every English
teacher on the planet, neither of us is in a position to know how
well versed in literary English they might be. Also, in accordance
with your claim, neither of us would have been taught literary
English, and are therefore in no position to know whether we
understand it or not.
No. After the living tradition has died, and before the Dark Age has
completely established its grip, there may be a brief Age of Critics,
Grammarians and Editors.

The mere fact that we're arguing about authors long dead instead of
enjoying authors still alive proves that English Literature has
finished. You'd spend less time defending Poe and I'd spend less time
defending Pope if either of us thought that either of them had a rival
living in our midst.
I found Chaucer's English fairly easy to understand -- although,
admittedly, I needed to look up a large number of words.
To avoid such chores, it's probably best to start reading Chaucer with
an edition that glosses unfamiliar words and difficult syntax on the
same page as the text, such as Cawley's /Canterbury Tales/ or
Warringtons's /Troïlus and Criseyde/, both of which I've used and
recommend.
Grammatically, it's different from modern English, but that
difference is not a qualitative one. Of course, there may have been
subtleties in his poetry that sailed clear over my head... but
unless I apprentice myself to a master (and you're certain they're
all dead), there's no way for me to ever know.
I didn't say we couldn't read Chaucer (or Pope or Byron or Eliot). I
said that we couldn't write in a style that would continue to develop
their tradition. All we can do is imitate, not very competently.

<...>
I haven't read anything by Runyon (and I really should) or Chandler
(although I did read his original screenplay for "The Blue Dahlia,"
but I did read Hammett's "The Maltese Falcon" and was surprised to
discover how closely the 1941 film followed it. It was a well
written book, only when compared to Hemingway or Stephen King.
Runyon's artificial prose style ought to become boring fast, but I
found that it didn't. His stories are all short and many of them are
very funny.

<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
As to the Cabinet, why do you think you could be a minister?
In the late 1980s there were plans to adopt me as a candidate for a
safe parliamentary seat. If I'd gone along with those plans, I'd
have been an MP since 1992, and it would have been difficult for
Boris to keep me out of his Cabinet.
But I preferred the road more travelled by. It isn't possible to be
a professional politician without becoming a professional freak.
I find that being an amateur freak is much more fun.
Yes, I have a vague recollection of your having mentioned the
Parliamentary seat offer in the past.
In the late 80s you were in your mid-20s and, IIRC, hadn't completed
college. Was the seat offered due to family connections? Or had
you risen to a position of prominence in your given field?
No, I didn't have those advantages. I was merely very good at climbing
the greasy pole. It's not a talent I'm proud of.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
I must, however, confess that I failed to even so much as open
a Math or Science book (unless one counts Lucretious).
If you mean Titus Lucretius, he was neither a mathematician nor
a scientist. He was a minor philosopher and a very good poet.
I was only citing him as a sort-of-scientist (although I realize
that my statement was unclear). I believe that "De rerum natura"
was quite scientific for its day. His atomic theory, for
example, is more along the lines of science than philosophy (at
least the philosophies of Antiquity: Socrates/Plato, Aristotle).
The atomic theory of Lucretius (which he borrowed from Epicurus,
who borrowed it from Democritus) has nothing to do with the atomic
theory of modern science. It's a philosophical fantasy. The
competing theory that everything is made of fire, water, air and
earth was closer to modern science, because it was based on
observations of the real world.
IIRC, Lucretius realized that matter was made up of atoms. Since we
can't see atoms with the naked eye, and since the microscope had yet
to be invented, I consider that alone to be a major step in the
field of scientific theory.
A rival ancient philosopher might have replied that we also can't
detect the mixing of the elements of earth, air, fire and water.

In reality, atoms can be split. Even protons and neutrons can be
split, and it would be a brave physicist who declared that hadrons
can't be split. As far as we know, there is no such thing as an
indivisible fundamental particle, so Democritus and Lucretius were
wrong. Their "major step" was a step backwards or at best sideways.
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
Coco DeSockmonkey
2019-10-10 19:21:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sat, 5 Oct 2019 21:07:09 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:51:35 -0700
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Mon, 23 Sep 2019 13:51:07 -0700
<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Anybody who tries to write good literary English nowadays
reminds me of Lucian's attempts to write good literary Greek
circa AD 150, long after the living tradition had perished. No
matter how admirable the achievement, it's never going to be
quite as good as the real thing.
That's a broad generalization and not entirely true. Most people
today can't write literary English because they've only
experienced it through a handful of books they only half-read,
and barely understood, in high school. And when they attempt to
emulate it, they fall victim to a natural tendency to overwrite.
Since they found the classics difficult to understand, they
conclude that the quality of one's writing increases
proportionately with one's inability to comprehend it.
You miss the important point that modern teachers are as baffled by
literary English as their students are. Nobody alive today is a
fluent native speaker or writer of the language that had its Golden
Age from Chaucer to Pope and its Silver Age from Byron to Eliot.
The apprentices used to learn from the masters, but it's been a
long time since there were any living masters to learn from.
I have to take issue with your assessment of the literary ages. The
Golden Age would have been from Blake to Carman (Eliot has no place
there), with the Silver Age preceding it.
Even if your taste in poetry were less corrupt, it would remain a fact
that Golden Ages always precede Silver Ages. It's a characteristic of
a Silver Age that its authors have a sneaking suspicion that they're
overshadowed by their Golden Age counterparts. What precedes a Golden
Age is a Primitive Age.
The pattern is clearest in Latin: Ennius (Primitive), Vergil (Golden),
Statius (Silver); or Plautus (Primitive), Terence (Golden), Petronius
(Silver), etc etc.
Even if we assume the pattern to be universal, its application would merely reclassify the age spanning from Chaucer to Pope as the "Primitive" one.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
As to the modern teachers; not having studied with every English
teacher on the planet, neither of us is in a position to know how
well versed in literary English they might be. Also, in accordance
with your claim, neither of us would have been taught literary
English, and are therefore in no position to know whether we
understand it or not.
No. After the living tradition has died, and before the Dark Age has
completely established its grip, there may be a brief Age of Critics,
Grammarians and Editors.
The mere fact that we're arguing about authors long dead instead of
enjoying authors still alive proves that English Literature has
finished. You'd spend less time defending Poe and I'd spend less time
defending Pope if either of us thought that either of them had a rival
living in our midst.
One of us most certainly does believe this, however he is not quite so boorish as to pursue the topic.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
I found Chaucer's English fairly easy to understand -- although,
admittedly, I needed to look up a large number of words.
To avoid such chores, it's probably best to start reading Chaucer with
an edition that glosses unfamiliar words and difficult syntax on the
same page as the text, such as Cawley's /Canterbury Tales/ or
Warringtons's /Troïlus and Criseyde/, both of which I've used and
recommend.
Naturally. Although for many years I had a copy of "The American College Dictionary" which included OE, ME and foreign roots, which proved invaluable. I also find that having to look up a word leaves a stronger impression on one's memory.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Grammatically, it's different from modern English, but that
difference is not a qualitative one. Of course, there may have been
subtleties in his poetry that sailed clear over my head... but
unless I apprentice myself to a master (and you're certain they're
all dead), there's no way for me to ever know.
I didn't say we couldn't read Chaucer (or Pope or Byron or Eliot). I
said that we couldn't write in a style that would continue to develop
their tradition. All we can do is imitate, not very competently.
All language is imitative to a large degree. As children, we imitate our parents, teachers, friends, characters on television shows, etc. We may not consciously imitate them, but we nevertheless pick up their expressions, grammatical idiosyncrasies, and so on.

When one reads predominately "literate" works, one's writing style will, similarly, reflect this. Poe, Dickins, Melville, Emerson, Hawthorne, Bierce, Twain, Alcott, Stevenson, et al., wrote in complete sentences, for instance, so I have come to regard this as both the natural, and proper, way for one to write.

When I was in grammar school, I always sat beside a friend, and fellow bookworm, on the bus. When I'd finish reading all my library books, I'd read his over his shoulder (picking up the narrative thread in the middle of Chapter 10 and stopping in the middle of Chapter 11 when we reached my stop). Today when I'm sitting next to someone on the bus, I often glance over at what they're reading. The "Dick & Jane" level grammar of modern best-sellers seems unnatural to me; and leaves me wondering how anyone could willingly (even enthusiastically) subject themselves to 1,000 pages of poorly-written text.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
I haven't read anything by Runyon (and I really should) or Chandler
(although I did read his original screenplay for "The Blue Dahlia,"
but I did read Hammett's "The Maltese Falcon" and was surprised to
discover how closely the 1941 film followed it. It was a well
written book, only when compared to Hemingway or Stephen King.
Runyon's artificial prose style ought to become boring fast, but I
found that it didn't. His stories are all short and many of them are
very funny.
I've yet to come across one of Runyon's books at the second-hand bookstores, libraries, etc., where I acquire the bulk of my reading material from. If I ever do, you'll know it immediately, as I'll no doubt spend at least six months writing in Runyonesque slang.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
As to the Cabinet, why do you think you could be a minister?
In the late 1980s there were plans to adopt me as a candidate for a
safe parliamentary seat. If I'd gone along with those plans, I'd
have been an MP since 1992, and it would have been difficult for
Boris to keep me out of his Cabinet.
But I preferred the road more travelled by. It isn't possible to be
a professional politician without becoming a professional freak.
I find that being an amateur freak is much more fun.
Yes, I have a vague recollection of your having mentioned the
Parliamentary seat offer in the past.
In the late 80s you were in your mid-20s and, IIRC, hadn't completed
college. Was the seat offered due to family connections? Or had
you risen to a position of prominence in your given field?
No, I didn't have those advantages. I was merely very good at climbing
the greasy pole. It's not a talent I'm proud of.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
I must, however, confess that I failed to even so much as open
a Math or Science book (unless one counts Lucretious).
If you mean Titus Lucretius, he was neither a mathematician nor
a scientist. He was a minor philosopher and a very good poet.
I was only citing him as a sort-of-scientist (although I realize
that my statement was unclear). I believe that "De rerum natura"
was quite scientific for its day. His atomic theory, for
example, is more along the lines of science than philosophy (at
least the philosophies of Antiquity: Socrates/Plato, Aristotle).
The atomic theory of Lucretius (which he borrowed from Epicurus,
who borrowed it from Democritus) has nothing to do with the atomic
theory of modern science. It's a philosophical fantasy. The
competing theory that everything is made of fire, water, air and
earth was closer to modern science, because it was based on
observations of the real world.
IIRC, Lucretius realized that matter was made up of atoms. Since we
can't see atoms with the naked eye, and since the microscope had yet
to be invented, I consider that alone to be a major step in the
field of scientific theory.
A rival ancient philosopher might have replied that we also can't
detect the mixing of the elements of earth, air, fire and water.
In reality, atoms can be split. Even protons and neutrons can be
split, and it would be a brave physicist who declared that hadrons
can't be split. As far as we know, there is no such thing as an
indivisible fundamental particle, so Democritus and Lucretius were
wrong. Their "major step" was a step backwards or at best sideways.
When do the first scientific writings date back to? Thales in 600-something BC? So what if Lucretius didn't allow for the possibility of nuclear fission -- he was at the scientific forefront of his time.
Hieronymous Corey
2019-10-10 19:37:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Runyon good.
Peter J Ross
2019-10-10 20:40:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Thu, 10 Oct 2019 12:21:31 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Coco DeSockmonkey
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sat, 5 Oct 2019 21:07:09 -0700
Post by Michael Pendragon
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:51:35 -0700
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Mon, 23 Sep 2019 13:51:07
<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Anybody who tries to write good literary English nowadays
reminds me of Lucian's attempts to write good literary Greek
circa AD 150, long after the living tradition had perished.
No matter how admirable the achievement, it's never going to
be quite as good as the real thing.
That's a broad generalization and not entirely true. Most
people today can't write literary English because they've only
experienced it through a handful of books they only half-read,
and barely understood, in high school. And when they attempt
to emulate it, they fall victim to a natural tendency to
overwrite. Since they found the classics difficult to
understand, they conclude that the quality of one's writing
increases proportionately with one's inability to comprehend
it.
You miss the important point that modern teachers are as baffled
by literary English as their students are. Nobody alive today is
a fluent native speaker or writer of the language that had its
Golden Age from Chaucer to Pope and its Silver Age from Byron to
Eliot. The apprentices used to learn from the masters, but it's
been a long time since there were any living masters to learn
from.
I have to take issue with your assessment of the literary ages.
The Golden Age would have been from Blake to Carman (Eliot has no
place there), with the Silver Age preceding it.
Even if your taste in poetry were less corrupt, it would remain a
fact that Golden Ages always precede Silver Ages. It's a
characteristic of a Silver Age that its authors have a sneaking
suspicion that they're overshadowed by their Golden Age
counterparts. What precedes a Golden Age is a Primitive Age.
The pattern is clearest in Latin: Ennius (Primitive), Vergil
(Golden), Statius (Silver); or Plautus (Primitive), Terence
(Golden), Petronius (Silver), etc etc.
Even if we assume the pattern to be universal,
But we don't, I hope! Surely somebody lurking in AAPC knows something
I don't, and can cause me to learn something new and change my opinion?

I'm getting tired of being a Master whose Apprentice refuses to learn.
Post by Coco DeSockmonkey
its application would merely reclassify the age spanning from
Chaucer to Pope as the "Primitive" one.
Alexander Pope, a "Primitive"? Reductio ad absurdum.

<...>
Post by Coco DeSockmonkey
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Grammatically, it's different from modern English, but that
difference is not a qualitative one. Of course, there may have
been subtleties in his poetry that sailed clear over my head...
but unless I apprentice myself to a master (and you're certain
they're all dead), there's no way for me to ever know.
I didn't say we couldn't read Chaucer (or Pope or Byron or Eliot).
I said that we couldn't write in a style that would continue to
develop their tradition. All we can do is imitate, not very
competently.
All language is imitative to a large degree. As children, we
imitate our parents, teachers, friends, characters on television
shows, etc. We may not consciously imitate them, but we
nevertheless pick up their expressions, grammatical idiosyncrasies,
and so on.
When one reads predominately "literate" works, one's writing style
will, similarly, reflect this. Poe, Dickins, Melville, Emerson,
Hawthorne, Bierce, Twain, Alcott, Stevenson, et al., wrote in
complete sentences, for instance, so I have come to regard this as
both the natural, and proper, way for one to write.
I'm disappointed that you can't spell "Dickens", but pleased that you
share my fondness for Ambrose Bierce.

/Inconstancy/, n. See WOMAN.

/Inconstant/, adj. See MAN.

In fact, there's no author on your lits whom I dislike. There's also
no author on your lits who I think ought to be imitated. Well, perhaps
Stevenson, who wrote plain prose, not fancy prose, could be imitated
without harm.

But the best models for prose style are the King James Bible and the
Book of Common Prayer.
Post by Coco DeSockmonkey
When I was in grammar school, I always sat beside a friend, and
fellow bookworm, on the bus. When I'd finish reading all my library
books, I'd read his over his shoulder (picking up the narrative
thread in the middle of Chapter 10 and stopping in the middle of
Chapter 11 when we reached my stop). Today when I'm sitting next to
someone on the bus, I often glance over at what they're reading.
The "Dick & Jane" level grammar of modern best-sellers seems
unnatural to me; and leaves me wondering how anyone could willingly
(even enthusiastically) subject themselves to 1,000 pages of
poorly-written text.
Hello, Lisa Simpson!
Post by Coco DeSockmonkey
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
I haven't read anything by Runyon (and I really should) or
Chandler (although I did read his original screenplay for "The
Blue Dahlia," but I did read Hammett's "The Maltese Falcon" and
was surprised to discover how closely the 1941 film followed it.
It was a well written book, only when compared to Hemingway or
Stephen King.
Runyon's artificial prose style ought to become boring fast, but I
found that it didn't. His stories are all short and many of them
are very funny.
I've yet to come across one of Runyon's books at the second-hand
bookstores, libraries, etc., where I acquire the bulk of my reading
material from. If I ever do, you'll know it immediately, as I'll no
doubt spend at least six months writing in Runyonesque slang.
Are you really so poor?

When I used to say that you were employed as a janitor I thought I was
trolling.

<...>
Post by Coco DeSockmonkey
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
The atomic theory of Lucretius (which he borrowed from Epicurus,
who borrowed it from Democritus) has nothing to do with the
atomic theory of modern science. It's a philosophical fantasy.
The competing theory that everything is made of fire, water, air
and earth was closer to modern science, because it was based on
observations of the real world.
IIRC, Lucretius realized that matter was made up of atoms. Since
we can't see atoms with the naked eye, and since the microscope
had yet to be invented, I consider that alone to be a major step
in the field of scientific theory.
A rival ancient philosopher might have replied that we also can't
detect the mixing of the elements of earth, air, fire and water.
In reality, atoms can be split. Even protons and neutrons can be
split, and it would be a brave physicist who declared that hadrons
can't be split. As far as we know, there is no such thing as an
indivisible fundamental particle, so Democritus and Lucretius were
wrong. Their "major step" was a step backwards or at best sideways.
When do the first scientific writings date back to?
Roger Bacon.
Post by Coco DeSockmonkey
Thales in 600-something BC?
That's inchoate philosophy, not science.
Post by Coco DeSockmonkey
So what if Lucretius didn't allow for the
possibility of nuclear fission -- he was at the scientific forefront
of his time.
No, he was a scientific ignoramus.

But he was a magnificent poet! I don't often gasp in admiration when
reading poetry, but Lucretius makes me gasp, over and over again.
Learn Latin, Creepster!
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
Coco DeSockmonkey
2019-10-10 20:56:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Thu, 10 Oct 2019 12:21:31 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Coco DeSockmonkey
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sat, 5 Oct 2019 21:07:09 -0700
Post by Michael Pendragon
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:51:35 -0700
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Mon, 23 Sep 2019 13:51:07
<...>
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
Anybody who tries to write good literary English nowadays
reminds me of Lucian's attempts to write good literary Greek
circa AD 150, long after the living tradition had perished.
No matter how admirable the achievement, it's never going to
be quite as good as the real thing.
That's a broad generalization and not entirely true. Most
people today can't write literary English because they've only
experienced it through a handful of books they only half-read,
and barely understood, in high school. And when they attempt
to emulate it, they fall victim to a natural tendency to
overwrite. Since they found the classics difficult to
understand, they conclude that the quality of one's writing
increases proportionately with one's inability to comprehend
it.
You miss the important point that modern teachers are as baffled
by literary English as their students are. Nobody alive today is
a fluent native speaker or writer of the language that had its
Golden Age from Chaucer to Pope and its Silver Age from Byron to
Eliot. The apprentices used to learn from the masters, but it's
been a long time since there were any living masters to learn
from.
I have to take issue with your assessment of the literary ages.
The Golden Age would have been from Blake to Carman (Eliot has no
place there), with the Silver Age preceding it.
Even if your taste in poetry were less corrupt, it would remain a
fact that Golden Ages always precede Silver Ages. It's a
characteristic of a Silver Age that its authors have a sneaking
suspicion that they're overshadowed by their Golden Age
counterparts. What precedes a Golden Age is a Primitive Age.
The pattern is clearest in Latin: Ennius (Primitive), Vergil
(Golden), Statius (Silver); or Plautus (Primitive), Terence
(Golden), Petronius (Silver), etc etc.
Even if we assume the pattern to be universal,
But we don't, I hope! Surely somebody lurking in AAPC knows something
I don't, and can cause me to learn something new and change my opinion?
I'm getting tired of being a Master whose Apprentice refuses to learn.
Post by Coco DeSockmonkey
its application would merely reclassify the age spanning from
Chaucer to Pope as the "Primitive" one.
Alexander Pope, a "Primitive"? Reductio ad absurdum.
Quite.

And, as such, rendering your theory of the progression from "Primitive" to "Golden" to "Silver" false.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Coco DeSockmonkey
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
Grammatically, it's different from modern English, but that
difference is not a qualitative one. Of course, there may have
been subtleties in his poetry that sailed clear over my head...
but unless I apprentice myself to a master (and you're certain
they're all dead), there's no way for me to ever know.
I didn't say we couldn't read Chaucer (or Pope or Byron or Eliot).
I said that we couldn't write in a style that would continue to
develop their tradition. All we can do is imitate, not very
competently.
All language is imitative to a large degree. As children, we
imitate our parents, teachers, friends, characters on television
shows, etc. We may not consciously imitate them, but we
nevertheless pick up their expressions, grammatical idiosyncrasies,
and so on.
When one reads predominately "literate" works, one's writing style
will, similarly, reflect this. Poe, Dickins, Melville, Emerson,
Hawthorne, Bierce, Twain, Alcott, Stevenson, et al., wrote in
complete sentences, for instance, so I have come to regard this as
both the natural, and proper, way for one to write.
I'm disappointed that you can't spell "Dickens", but pleased that you
share my fondness for Ambrose Bierce.
/Inconstancy/, n. See WOMAN.
/Inconstant/, adj. See MAN.
In fact, there's no author on your lits whom I dislike. There's also
no author on your lits who I think ought to be imitated. Well, perhaps
Stevenson, who wrote plain prose, not fancy prose, could be imitated
without harm.
But the best models for prose style are the King James Bible and the
Book of Common Prayer.
Post by Coco DeSockmonkey
When I was in grammar school, I always sat beside a friend, and
fellow bookworm, on the bus. When I'd finish reading all my library
books, I'd read his over his shoulder (picking up the narrative
thread in the middle of Chapter 10 and stopping in the middle of
Chapter 11 when we reached my stop). Today when I'm sitting next to
someone on the bus, I often glance over at what they're reading.
The "Dick & Jane" level grammar of modern best-sellers seems
unnatural to me; and leaves me wondering how anyone could willingly
(even enthusiastically) subject themselves to 1,000 pages of
poorly-written text.
Hello, Lisa Simpson!
I'm also a vegan.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Coco DeSockmonkey
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
I haven't read anything by Runyon (and I really should) or
Chandler (although I did read his original screenplay for "The
Blue Dahlia," but I did read Hammett's "The Maltese Falcon" and
was surprised to discover how closely the 1941 film followed it.
It was a well written book, only when compared to Hemingway or
Stephen King.
Runyon's artificial prose style ought to become boring fast, but I
found that it didn't. His stories are all short and many of them
are very funny.
I've yet to come across one of Runyon's books at the second-hand
bookstores, libraries, etc., where I acquire the bulk of my reading
material from. If I ever do, you'll know it immediately, as I'll no
doubt spend at least six months writing in Runyonesque slang.
Are you really so poor?
No, but I've got two children in college and a 30 year mortgage that I'm paying off, so I try to save money on non-necessities whenever possible.
Post by Peter J Ross
When I used to say that you were employed as a janitor I thought I was
trolling.
<...>
Post by Coco DeSockmonkey
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Michael Pendragon
The atomic theory of Lucretius (which he borrowed from Epicurus,
who borrowed it from Democritus) has nothing to do with the
atomic theory of modern science. It's a philosophical fantasy.
The competing theory that everything is made of fire, water, air
and earth was closer to modern science, because it was based on
observations of the real world.
IIRC, Lucretius realized that matter was made up of atoms. Since
we can't see atoms with the naked eye, and since the microscope
had yet to be invented, I consider that alone to be a major step
in the field of scientific theory.
A rival ancient philosopher might have replied that we also can't
detect the mixing of the elements of earth, air, fire and water.
In reality, atoms can be split. Even protons and neutrons can be
split, and it would be a brave physicist who declared that hadrons
can't be split. As far as we know, there is no such thing as an
indivisible fundamental particle, so Democritus and Lucretius were
wrong. Their "major step" was a step backwards or at best sideways.
When do the first scientific writings date back to?
Roger Bacon.
Post by Coco DeSockmonkey
Thales in 600-something BC?
That's inchoate philosophy, not science.
It was the closest thing we had to science at the time.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Coco DeSockmonkey
So what if Lucretius didn't allow for the
possibility of nuclear fission -- he was at the scientific forefront
of his time.
No, he was a scientific ignoramus.
But he was a magnificent poet! I don't often gasp in admiration when
reading poetry, but Lucretius makes me gasp, over and over again.
Learn Latin, Creepster!
Eah-yay ight-ray.
High Number
2019-08-27 23:30:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hieronymous Corey
Found something I thought you'd like. Five hours of
Edgar Allan Poe stories read by Vincent Price and Basil Rathbone.
http://www.openculture.com/2015/08/5-hours-of-edgar-allan-poe-stories-read-by-vincent-price-basil-rathbone.html?fbclid=IwAR2dZzoniUmQaP-sAiEUfEfLSg9CMLghMP8ef7NWdgMhb4rIBT0DJPRNxaI
Very nice......

I found this today........



The Tell Tale Heart - 1953 narrated by James Mason
Michael Pendragon
2019-08-28 05:37:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by High Number
Post by Hieronymous Corey
Found something I thought you'd like. Five hours of
Edgar Allan Poe stories read by Vincent Price and Basil Rathbone.
http://www.openculture.com/2015/08/5-hours-of-edgar-allan-poe-stories-read-by-vincent-price-basil-rathbone.html?fbclid=IwAR2dZzoniUmQaP-sAiEUfEfLSg9CMLghMP8ef7NWdgMhb4rIBT0DJPRNxaI
Very nice......
I found this today........
http://youtu.be/flKOtXC4oyM
The Tell Tale Heart - 1953 narrated by James Mason
Shut up, Todd.
Will Dockery
2019-08-28 06:51:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by High Number
Post by Hieronymous Corey
Found something I thought you'd like. Five hours of
Edgar Allan Poe stories read by Vincent Price and Basil Rathbone.
http://www.openculture.com/2015/08/5-hours-of-edgar-allan-poe-stories-read-by-vincent-price-basil-rathbone.html?fbclid=IwAR2dZzoniUmQaP-sAiEUfEfLSg9CMLghMP8ef7NWdgMhb4rIBT0DJPRNxaI
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by High Number
Very nice......
I found this today........
http://youtu.be/flKOtXC4oyM
The Tell Tale Heart - 1953 narrated by James Mason
Shut up, Todd.
Now, Pendragon... try to play nice.

You're acting like a spoiled brat.

;)
High Number
2019-08-28 05:55:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Why not you try shutting up, Pendragon....?
Michael Pendragon
2019-08-28 08:05:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by High Number
Why not you try shutting up, Pendragon....?
Why not me try shutting up?

Why not you try learning English?
Will Dockery
2019-08-28 08:20:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by High Number
Why not you try shutting up, Pendragon....?
Why not me try shutting up?
Why not you try learning English?
Better yet, why not both of you just post all day and all night?

;)
Cujo DeSockpuppet
2019-08-28 19:46:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by High Number
Why not you try shutting up, Pendragon....?
Why not me try shutting up?
Why not you try learning English?
Better yet, why not both of you just post all day and all night?
You mean like you and the other pissbum do?
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"Now go refund every single previous client's money because you
obviously fuck up every time you practice astrology." Alan Williams
evaluates Raytard Murphy's skill as an astrologer.
George J. Dance
2019-08-28 20:09:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Why not you try learning English?
"Suffice to say that I practically born with a highly discriminating sense of literary taste." - Michael 'Pig Pen' Pendragon
Message-ID: <3d47feae-bede-4e3a-8f88-***@googlegroups.com>
Brainiac Five
2019-08-28 23:30:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Michael Pendragon
Why not you try learning English?
"Suffice to say that I practically born with a highly discriminating sense of literary taste." - Michael 'Pig Pen' Pendragon
Pendragon is just a pretentious fake.......
High Number
2019-08-28 09:33:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Funny one, Pen... .. you sound JUST like a schoolyard bully.....
Michael Pendragon
2019-08-28 11:20:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by High Number
Funny one, Pen... .. you sound JUST like a schoolyard bully.....
Aw... did da bad ol' bullies waugh at widdle Stinky cause he not know how speak good Engwish?
Will Dockery
2019-08-28 16:06:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by High Number
Funny one, Pen... .. you sound JUST like a schoolyard bully.....
Aw... did da bad ol' bullies waugh at widdle
You just proved Zod's point for him... your behavior is that of a childish cyberbully.
Conley Brothers
2019-08-28 16:30:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by High Number
Funny one, Pen... .. you sound JUST like a schoolyard bully.....
Aw... did da bad ol' bullies waugh at widdle
You just proved Zod's point for him... your behavior is that of a childish cyberbully.
George "Zod" Sulzbach hit your own brother in the head with a pipe, drunken bully that he is. You shrugged it off because he slurps your crusty asshole.
Will Dockery
2019-08-28 16:37:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Conley Brothers
"Zod"
hit your own brother in the head with a pipe
We've been over that already, Zod made his apology the next morning and my brother accepted the apology.

End of story.
High Number
2019-09-01 20:08:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Peter seems to hate Poe because he was an American........
George J. Dance
2019-09-15 15:02:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by High Number
Peter seems to hate Poe because he was an American........
More or less. He was taught that there wasn't any decent American poetry in the 19th century (by people who hadn't studied it, because they were taught the same thing), and he's spent 3 decades believing it without question.
Peter J Ross
2019-09-15 16:44:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 15 Sep 2019 08:02:35 -0700 (PDT),
Post by George J. Dance
Post by High Number
Peter seems to hate Poe because he was an American........
More or less. He was taught that there wasn't any decent American
poetry in the 19th century (by people who hadn't studied it, because
they were taught the same thing), and he's spent 3 decades believing
it without question.
On the contrary, I was taught that Drunken Eddy Poe, Stinky Walt
Whitman and Looney Emmy Dickinson were poetry gods.

I'd have found such claims more believable if they hadn't been
accompanied by specimens of the "poets'" ungodlike drivel.

Meanwhile, I had to discover Tennyson, Browning and Matthew Arnold in
my spare time.

I'm not aware of a consistently good American poet before E A
Robinson, but that's not America's fault. The USA was (and still is) a
thinly populated country. Besides, Chaucer, Spenser, Dryden and
Pope are as much American poets as they are British.

And in the 20th Century the USA produced such fine poets as

E A Robinson
R Frost
W Stevens
W C Williams
E Wylie
E Pound
H Doolittle
T S Eliot
E Pound
J C Ransom
C Aiken
E St V Millay
M van Doren
E E Cummings
L Bogan
A Tate
O Nash
R P Blackmur
D Schwartz
R Jarrell
J Berryman

and others.

I'd find it difficult to produce an equally long lits of good British
poets of the 20th Century.

The claim that I'm biased against American poets is thus refuted.
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
Michael Pendragon
2019-09-16 04:10:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 15 Sep 2019 08:02:35 -0700 (PDT),
Post by George J. Dance
Post by High Number
Peter seems to hate Poe because he was an American........
More or less. He was taught that there wasn't any decent American
poetry in the 19th century (by people who hadn't studied it, because
they were taught the same thing), and he's spent 3 decades believing
it without question.
On the contrary, I was taught that Drunken Eddy Poe, Stinky Walt
Whitman and Looney Emmy Dickinson were poetry gods.
I'd have found such claims more believable if they hadn't been
accompanied by specimens of the "poets'" ungodlike drivel.
Meanwhile, I had to discover Tennyson, Browning and Matthew Arnold in
my spare time.
We read "Dover Beach" in 9th grad English; Browning in 11th grade. I don't recall if we'd read any Tennyson (although I'd known of him at an early age due to his inclusion on the "Game of Authors" cards.
Post by Peter J Ross
I'm not aware of a consistently good American poet before E A
Robinson, but that's not America's fault. The USA was (and still is) a
thinly populated country. Besides, Chaucer, Spenser, Dryden and
Pope are as much American poets as they are British.
And in the 20th Century the USA produced such fine poets as
E A Robinson
R Frost
W Stevens
W C Williams
E Wylie
E Pound
H Doolittle
T S Eliot
E Pound
J C Ransom
C Aiken
E St V Millay
M van Doren
E E Cummings
L Bogan
A Tate
O Nash
R P Blackmur
D Schwartz
R Jarrell
J Berryman
and others.
Dammit, Peter! You could have used my name.
Post by Peter J Ross
I'd find it difficult to produce an equally long lits of good British
poets of the 20th Century.
The claim that I'm biased against American poets is thus refuted.
--
PJR :-)
τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
Peter J Ross
2019-09-19 21:12:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 15 Sep 2019 21:10:14 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
And in the 20th Century the USA produced such fine poets as
E A Robinson
R Frost
W Stevens
W C Williams
E Wylie
E Pound
H Doolittle
T S Eliot
E Pound
J C Ransom
C Aiken
E St V Millay
M van Doren
E E Cummings
L Bogan
A Tate
O Nash
R P Blackmur
D Schwartz
R Jarrell
J Berryman
and others.
Dammit, Peter! You could have used my name.
My lits was an edited version of the table of contents of an anthology
published in 1954.

But feel free to consider yourself as fine a poet as some of those
whose names I deleted, such as Edgar Lee Masters and Vachel Lindsay.
--
PJR :-)

τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
Michael Pendragon
2019-09-20 03:59:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 15 Sep 2019 21:10:14 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
And in the 20th Century the USA produced such fine poets as
E A Robinson
R Frost
W Stevens
W C Williams
E Wylie
E Pound
H Doolittle
T S Eliot
E Pound
J C Ransom
C Aiken
E St V Millay
M van Doren
E E Cummings
L Bogan
A Tate
O Nash
R P Blackmur
D Schwartz
R Jarrell
J Berryman
and others.
Dammit, Peter! You could have used my name.
My lits was an edited version of the table of contents of an anthology
published in 1954.
But feel free to consider yourself as fine a poet as some of those
whose names I deleted, such as Edgar Lee Masters and Vachel Lindsay.
Not bad. As modern's go, they're two of the lesser offenders.
Z***@none.i2p
2019-10-10 19:57:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Peter J Ross wrote on Thu, 19 September 2019 21:12
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 15 Sep 2019 21:10:14 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Peter J Ross
And in the 20th Century the USA produced such fine poets as
E A Robinson
R Frost
W Stevens
W C Williams
E Wylie
E Pound
H Doolittle
T S Eliot
E Pound
J C Ransom
C Aiken
E St V Millay
M van Doren
E E Cummings
L Bogan
A Tate
O Nash
R P Blackmur
D Schwartz
R Jarrell
J Berryman
and others.
Dammit, Peter! You could have used my name.
My lits was an edited version of the table of contents of an anthology
published in 1954.
But feel free to consider yourself as fine a poet as some of those
whose names I deleted, such as Edgar Lee Masters and Vachel Lindsay.
--
PJR :)
τὸν οἰόμενον νόον ἔχειν ὁ νουθετέων ματαιοπονεῖ.
- Democritus
Ha ha ha...........
Perry Winkler
2019-10-06 04:55:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hieronymous Corey
Found something I thought you'd like. Five hours of
Edgar Allan Poe stories read by Vincent Price and Basil Rathbone.
http://www.openculture.com/2015/08/5-hours-of-edgar-allan-poe-stories-read-by-vincent-price-basil-rathbone.html?fbclid=IwAR2dZzoniUmQaP-sAiEUfEfLSg9CMLghMP8ef7NWdgMhb4rIBT0DJPRNxaI
Good find Pastor C.
Z***@none.i2p
2019-10-10 22:03:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Michael Pendragon wrote:[/color
<...>
[color=teal]>> Anybody who tries to write good s
Shut up, fuckhead......!
Loading...